Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Pensioners (Telephone Bills)

Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has made any estimate of the financial position of pensioners who receive social security pensions in the light of their expenditure patterns in relation to items such as telephones.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the increased prosperity of pensioners is reflected in the extent to which they now have access to important household items. For instance, 86 per cent. of pensioners had use of a telephone in 1989, compared with less than 50 per cent. in 1979. Those figures will be of considerable encouragement and comfort to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who has often raised the matter in parliamentary questions and who celebrates his 77th birthday today.

Mr. Jessel: As it is so important for pensioners—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)—to be able to telephone, and as this large and welcome increase has taken place because of the successful management of the economy by the Conservative Government, does my hon. Friend agree that such improvements could be placed at risk by the extravagant and foolish proposals of the Opposition?

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. The extravagant expenditure proposed by Opposition Members will not benefit pensioners who need it most, and neither will they target resources on the poorest pensioners—their plans will result merely in large rises in national insurance for everyone, including the lower paid.

Mr. Alfred Morris: In regard specifically to disabled pensioners, will the Minister confirm that the local authority has a duty, under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, to assess their need for a telephone; and that, as I was legally advised as Minister, for provision of a telephone to be withdrawn is unlawful without diminution in the need in any particular disabled pensioner's case?

Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman has correctly interpreted the law on the responsibilities of local authorities. The Government are particularly concerned to channel extra help with telephones to elderly or infirm

people who depend on the telephone as a lifeline, as so many do. We have therefore ensured a better deal than ever before for elderly and infirm people, whereby in many cases rental prices will be halved and low users will receive 30 free call units every quarter.

Sir Bernard Braine: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind reference to me. The trend towards more people acquiring personal pensions is welcome, but would it be possible at some stage to publish proposals to encourage people to make their pension arrangements at an earlier stage? Would that not be a marvellous step towards encouraging people to take responsibility for their own pension arrangements as I know that the Government wish to do?

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. My right hon. Friend will be interested to know that more than half the pensioners taking retirement, and a considerably larger proportion of all retired persons, have provision other than the state pension, of which personal pensions are one aspect. As the original question was about telephones, it may interest the House to know that the increase in pensioners' prosperity has been such that 70 per cent. now have central heating, compared with 43·2 per cent. under the last Labour Government, 96 per cent. have a fridge, 71 per cent. have a washing machine and 98 per cent. have a television.

Savings

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he proposes to make any changes in the way income from savings is assessed for benefit purposes.

Miss Widdecombe: The present capital rules give the greatest help to those with the lowest savings. The rules continue to be kept under review, but no further change is proposed at present. Substantial changes were made only last year to the amount of capital that a person can have and still receive income-related benefits.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that most of the people claiming housing and poll tax benefit under the existing regulations believe that, in 1991, £3,000 is a fairly modest amount of savings? Should not the tariffed income basis, which takes 20·8 per cent. interest, be amended? When people begin to lose in that way, should not something be done to give them a better deal?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman should do his sums again. He will find that there is a clawback of only 1·6 per cent. interest from those at the lower end of the income scale. The present system means that it is better to have a tariff than to take into account the actual income of those with low savings, because that is precisely the point at which the tariff benefits them. I know of nowhere else where interest would be assumed to be just 1·6 per cent.

Mrs. Roe: Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that the Government have no plans to introduce a tax on savings, as mooted by the Labour party?

Miss Widdecombe: I assure my hon. Friend that we have no such plans. Our plans will encourage savings and, more important from the pensioner's point of view, protect savings—unlike what happened to pensioners' savings under the last Labour Government.

Earnings Disregard

Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to adjust the earnings disregard for single parents on income support.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): We increased the earnings disregard for working lone parents on housing benefit and community charge benefit to £25 per week from last October, but we have no plans at present to change the corresponding £15 income support disregard, which is already £10 higher than that for most other claimants.

Ms. Short: As there has been an enormous growth in the proportion of lone parents dependent on income support under the present Government, because various changes have increased the poverty trap, would it not be much better to increase the disregard for income support and maintenance payments so that lone parents can move off benefits into semi-independence and then into work, rather than do as the Government have done and push more and more of them on to benefits, which the Conservatives then bellyache about because of the much bigger poverty trap?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady, despite her long-standing interest in these matters, has perhaps failed to focus on the fact that simply operating on income support earnings disregards works against the process that she wishes to advance of lone parents moving into what counts as full-time work. Much the more productive approach is to do what we have done, as I said in my first answer, and improve the earnings disregards for the in-work benefits. We shall build on that, in addition to the Child Support Bill proposals, by reducing the number of hours required to qualify a person for family credit and by introducing a maintenance disregard.

Mr. Harris: I accept that my right hon. Friend said that and I pay tribute to what the Government have done, but two lone parents who came to see me on Friday at my surgery in Penzance made the point that if the earnings disregard were raised from £15 they would be able to earn more through part-time work and therefore be able to devote more of their income to their children—for example, through school uniforms and school trips. Will my right hon. Friend consider that matter sympathetically?

Mr. Newton: To some extent, I am virtually driven to repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). Perhaps some of those people who went to see my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) did not focus sufficiently on the proposed change that would reduce family credit hours—to use a form of shorthand—from 24 to 16, together with other changes that the Government have already made.

Mr. Frank Field: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that his argument in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was inadequate? My hon. Friend merely asked the Government to continue a policy that they have already begun and to raise the disregard. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, as

the disregard is increased, more single parents may find an opportunity to find part-time work—and, in the long run, a full-time job—and more single parents may be able to raise the cash to cover child care costs? If it was right in the past to raise the disregard, why is it wrong to raise it in the future?

Mr. Newton: First, to advert to the warm murmurs of approval from the House, I should say how delighted we all are, regardless of party, at the hon. Gentleman's success in Birkenhead at the end of last week.
If the hon. Gentleman examines what I said earlier, he will see that I have not ruled out further consideration of disregards in this respect, as in others, but for the past year or two I have thought it right to concentrate on disregards for in-work benefits and on the improvements to family credit to which I referred. Sixteen hours would, in many people's book, count as being closer to part-time than to full-time work, yet above that threshold people will now be able to qualify for family credit. One has only to consider the figures, which show a larger number of people—including lone parents—cm family credit to know how important a benefit it is proving to be.

Family Credit

Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total value of spending on family credit since its introduction.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): In the three years since the introduction of family credit, we have spent approximately £1·3 billion in cash terms, or 1·4 billion at 1990–91 prices, and by the end of the present financial year we expect to have spent £1·8 billion.

Miss Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the average expenditure on family credit per family is about £30 per week, whereas average expenditure in today's terms on Labour's family income supplement would have been £11 per week? Does my hon. Friend therefore believe, as I do, that the modern Labour party is utterly hypocritical in its supposed concern for the poor when its Front-Bench spokesmen said that Labour would allow family credit to wither on the vine?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend's last point reminds me of the fact that whereas we have awarded family credit to 2 million people, the Labour party's policy for those on lower wages would mean the loss of 2 million jobs through the minimum wage proposals. My hon. Friend's figures for family credit are correct. In 1979 family income supplement was about £5·26, which is £13·50 in today's terms; 65 per cent. of people on family credit now get £20 per week or more, 30 per cent. get £40 per week, and 17 per cent. get £50 per week.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister say a word about the difficulties of the self-employed? As some of my case work substantiates, the bureaucratic application procedures are especially difficult for self-employed people such as farmers and fishermen. I know that the Government are turning their attention to academic studies, but will the Minister say something positive today?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman does his self-employed constituents much service in the way he has represented


them—especially the share fishermen—on the question of family credit. He will know, however, that nearly 45 per cent. of self-employed people receive £50 or more per week. The Government intend to take careful note of the research commissioned through the social policy research unit at York university, which is examining carefully the way in which family credit works for self-employed people, with a view to improving the delivery of the service to that group.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that family credit and other benefits repay detailed consideration, and that even though there are serious differences between, for instance, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the Government, it is one of the issues to which Militant and the far left have nothing to contribute and where they have never shown much interest in the poor?

Mr. Jack: As always, detail is an important element in social security. I made a detailed search of the Opposition's spending proposals for any changes that would benefit the people on family credit, but I could find none.

Mr. Madden: As family credit is essentially a state subsidy for low pay, will the Minister say by how much family credit spending would have decreased if a national minimum wage had been in place for the past three years?

Mr. Jack: I do not believe in answering hypothetical questions. The Conservative party has no intention of introducing such a ludicrous system. Family credit enables people to accept lower-paid work in order to get back to work, with the advantage of having their finances supplemented by family credit. That is something to be applauded.

Pensioners' Incomes

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the value of the average pensioner's income from savings and occupational pensions; and what were the comparable figures in 1979.

Miss Widdecombe: From 1979 to 1987, the average pensioner's net weekly income from savings increased from £9·10 to £20·90 and occupational pensions income increased from £13·20 to £23·30 at 1987 prices.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I welcome those figures. Does my hon. Friend agree that inflation remains the greatest threat to the prosperity of pensioners? In those terms, is she satisfied that the retail prices index accurately reflects the costs borne by those pensioners who depend mainly on the old age pension, or does she think that some other index of costs for pensioners should be sought?

Miss Widdecombe: At the moment, we have no plans to change the index by which we assess pensioners' incomes, but it is, of course, something which we always keep under review, and we shall continue to do so. From the figures that I gave my hon. Friend, however, it appears that our policies are working and are raising pensioners' overall incomes, which grew by a net 31 per cent. between 1979 and 1987—an average of 3·5 per cent. per year—whereas between 1974 and 1979, when inflation was rampant, the average increase was a mere 0·6 per cent. per year.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister confirm that all the figures that she has quoted are gross, and therefore conceal the enormous increase in the taxation of pensioners in the past 12 years? According to the figures that she herself produced in Hansard a fortnight ago, the poorest one fifth of pensioners paid 28 per cent. of their incomes in taxes in 1979 but now have to pay more than 40 per cent. How can she justify the fact that after 12 years of Toryism those pensioners are paying proportionately more in tax than was paid by the richest one fifth of households in 1979, when we were told that high taxes were driving the rich out of the country?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman's arithmetic does not improve with each new statement that he makes. Those were, indeed, my statements, but the hon. Gentleman is persistent in either accidentally misunderstanding or deliberately misinterpreting such statements. I said clearly at the start that the figures that I gave were net.

Mr. Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) has said, the best Government for pensioners is the Government who keep inflation firmly under control, as the Conservative Government have done for the past 12 years? In that respect, will she assure pensioners and the House that her Department will ensure that spending is prudent and does not get out of control, in contrast with the plans of the Labour party, which would unleash massive inflation and thus ruin the standard of living of all pensioners? Will my hon. Friend give the House that assurance?

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, public opinion appears to be waking up to the dreadful implications of Labour's spending plans, as shown by the movements in opinion measured at the weekend. We shall, of course, pursue a prudent policy. We shall not promise what we cannot deliver, and we shall not promise to spend vast sums that will then have to be raised from the taxes and national insurance contributions of the less well off as well as from others.

Students

Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider making some special provision for students during the summer vacation who are unable to obtain temporary employment; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Financial support for full-time students is properly the responsibility of the education maintenance system, which has been considerably enhanced in the current financial year.

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister has ignored my question, which was about the assistance available to students who cannot obtain casual employment during the vacation and who, with their families, will therefore face hardship. I am asking whether the Minister is prepared to give those students some assistance, either through income support or in some other way, when they find that the requests that they make to employers for casual employment are met


with the answer, "No, we cannot help you." Will those students be given some assistance for the summer vacation? Can we have a direct answer?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman referred to students and their families. Those in vulnerable groups, such as lone parents, student couples with children, and disabled students, will be entitled to access to the benefit system. The role for supporting other students lies with the access funds set up by the Department of Education and Science. To make provision also through the benefit system would be to make double provision. The institutions are aware that access funds should be available not only during term time but during vacations.

Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that many of his colleagues were students in the past? Is it not better to target the available money to the genuinely less well off in society rather than to students who, when they have completed their training, will have the opportunity to earn considerable sums of money as a result of their privileged opportunity to become highly qualified?

Mr. Scott: I do not dissent from that for one moment. It must be recognised that provision for supporting students has been substantially improved during the current academic year and students in difficulty can fall back on access funds.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister acknowledge that the Government's ending of all entitlement to benefit for 16 to 17-year-olds, and the imposition of a lower rate of benefit for 18 to 25-year-olds have pushed more young people, including students, into poverty than ever before? Is he aware that the link between poverty and inadequate diet, ill health and low educational achievement has been conclusively demonstrated in a series of research studies published in the past month? When will the Minister and his colleagues apologise to the House, not just for the fact that poverty has more than doubled in the past 12 years but for the fact that it is now conclusively shown that the main cause of the growth in poverty is the Government's policies?

Mr. Scott: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in bringing 16 and 17-year-olds into an argument about full-time students, which manifestly they are not. Secondly, I deny absolutely that there has been a growth in poverty under this Government. Labour Members' tendentious use of statistics seeking to prove that case has been absolutely refuted by statistics which have been widely available for some time. We are monitoring carefully the impact of the changes on 16 and 17-year-olds, but I still believe that it was bad for society for youngsters to be leaving school and going directly on to benefit.

Pension Funds

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to bring forward regulations to restrict self-investment by pension funds.

Miss Widdecombe: As my hon. Friend may be aware, draft regulations for restricting self-investment by pension funds have been referred to the Occupational Pensions Board for consideration. The board has consulted widely

on the proposals and will consider the responses at its next meeting, in July. We intend to bring forward draft regulations as soon as practicable after that.

Mr. Cran: The draft regulations are undoubtedly a step in the right direction and will be widely welcomed. Does my hon. Friend accept that some financial institutions believe that any level of self-investment, other than for very small funds, is undesirable not only because of double jeopardy but because of conflicts of interest in take-over situations and problems with insider dealing legislation?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right. A body of opinion holds that no self-investment could be ideal. I hope that my hon. Friend will also appreciate that it would be impractical to try to move towards that when there has been a certain amount of self-investment in property. To insist on immediate disinvestment of that nature would mean that firms would be disposing of the very assets that they use on a day-to-day basis. Although I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I am sure that it will feature in the consultations, the position of certain companies is such that total disinvestment would be neither practical nor desirable.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not time that employees received far greater protection for their pension funds through legislation? The Government continually talk about involving parents in school decisions and about enabling doctors to opt out of the national health service, so how about allowing employees to make decisions about how their pension fund money is used? Those funds should be protected from predators such as Hanson, who was stopped in the courts last time but who considers taking over such companies with a view to using the money from pension funds for other purposes. The workers deserve protection. When will they get it?

Miss Widdecombe: They already have protection to a large measure and the regulations that we are introducing are designed to improve it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that pension funds are already protected by requirements for the reserves kept, so they are far less easy to plunder than he suggests. Nevertheless, what he says is important and will not be overlooked. It has formed the basis of much that we are now trying to do.

Family Credit

Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when a Minister from his Department last visited the national family credit unit at North Fylde.

Mr. Jack: I visited the family credit unit at Blackpool on 30 May 1991 and was delighted to be able to mark the 2 millionth award of family credit since the scheme started in 1988 and to put on record, as I do this afternoon, my appreciation to the staff for all their efforts in delivering this high-quality benefit.

Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the average family in need now receives about £30 a week in family credit compared with about £11 a week under the old income supplement scheme? Is not that evidence of our ability to deliver to families in social need and does not it compare favourably with the wild and uncosted promises from the Labour party?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend adverts to the fact that Opposition Members have a policy of allowing family credit to wither on the vine. In putting the fertiliser on the roots, we have been able to ensure that the take-up of the benefit has grown to a record caseload of 328,000 people. The figures that my hon. Friend quoted about the awards made are entirely correct.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Minister satisfied with the speed with which applications are dealt, especially those concerning the self-employed? The procedures there seem to be so bureaucratic that many families are left on the breadline. There may be a back payment once a decision is reached, but that is no consolation to such families.

Mr. Jack: The performance of the family credit unit is the subject of continual concern and of continual monitoring by the Benefits Agency. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that in March the performance target of dealing with all claims in about 18 days was exceeded, although subsequently some operational difficulties have caused a one-day delay. In general, the cases of the self-employed present particular complexities. That is what the research to which I referred a moment ago is designed to cure. I give the hon. Lady the assurance that we will do all that we can to deal with the problem to which she has rightly drawn my attention.

Dr. Godman: Why has not the Minister linked the questions on family credit?
The Minister talks about 2 million successful applications for family credit. What do those figures represent in percentage terms? Is it anywhere near the 80 per cent. claimed by Ministers three or four years ago? What are the Government doing to persuade more people to apply for family credit? What advertisements are being placed in local papers to attract those who are entitled to claim family credit because of their lousy wages?

Mr. Jack: I chose not to link the questions because we give, I hope, service from the Dispatch Box and we like to respond to every question put to us by hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman shows the assiduity of his attendance in the House by the fact that he was unable to be in front of his television set during February and March. If he had, he would have seen our latest advertising campaign, which drew people's attention to a message printed in 6·8 million child benefit order books, or on the automatic credit transfer letter, giving to every family with children a detailed message about the family credit to which they might be entitled. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the cost of that advertising campaign—£1·5 million to reach 6·87 million families—was damn good value for money.

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are expected to gain from the proposed reduction in the number of hours that must be worked in order to qualify for family credit.

Mr. Jack: Our latest estimate is that there is potential for about 65,000 families where a parent is currently working between 16 and 24 hours to gain from the change in the hours rule. In addition, this should also encourage more people to take up employment and so improve their income with the help of family credit.

Mr. Field: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What is the maximum that a lone parent with, say, two children

under the age of 11 can earn? Does he agree that the Government have eradicated the benefit precipice for lone parents and replaced it with the excellent bridge of family credit, thus encouraging more lone parents back to work?

Mr. Jack: In my speech on the Second Reading of the Child Support Bill I referred to example 10 in the White Paper "Children Come First", which is a clear exposition of the benefits of our proposal. It shows that a lone parent with a child could be much better off in work with family credit and at the same time meet about £45 of in-work costs. Our proposals reduce a person's step-up from income support back into work and are a worthwhile development.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that it is misleading to say that there are 2 million recipients of family credit because each applicant has to apply every six months and many people are being counted three or four times? Is not it also highly misleading to quote the number of applications for family credit when there is a 42 per cent. turndown of applicants? Is not it equally misleading to draw a comparison with the previous family income supplement figures when many of the benefits under the previous regime were cut in the 1988 review? When will the Government give straight answers to straight questions?

Mr. Jack: In about one second. I do not choose to mislead the House by one iota. I have made it abundantly clear that my answers are about the number of successful awards. Anybody who looks at those will see how the figures are constructed. This benefit has enabled us to put £1·4 billion to the benefit of people in low-income employment to help them to maintain their position in the workplace. I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's figure of 42 per cent. However, I recognise that 70 per cent. of present applicants for family credit are successful.

Older Employees (Redundancies)

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider establishing intermediate supplementary assistance on a short-term basis to assist older employees suffering unexpected redundancies; and what information he has on the practice in other countries in respect of short-run social security help to complement conventional unemployment payments made from public funds for older members of the work force.

Mr. Newton: A range of social security payments may be claimed by older workers who are made redundant in addition to redundancy payments from their employer, which are based on age and length of service.
The Department regularly collects information about social security provisions in other countries. However, international comparisons are often misleading because of the wide range of factors, including provisions outside the social security system, which need to be taken into account.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. We all hope that the recession is beginning to abate and that there will soon be an upturn in the economy. However, there will be a time lag, which is particularly hard on the growing number of redundancies of people who are 50-plus, because such people experience difficulty getting other jobs. We all know of such cases in our constituencies. Will my right hon.


Friend consider some additional mechanism, bearing in mind the fact that it is Government policy to try to tailor some benefits to individual needs?

Mr. Newton: The latest figures, which I think reflect the latest analysis in detail, show that the number of unemployed over the age of 50 fell by about 45,000 between April 1989 and April 1991. I do not intend to build too much on that, but it is an interesting point. Those who become unemployed and entitled to income support after the age of 60 are entitled to what in other circumstances would be called the pensioner premium. That may assuage some of my hon. Friend's concern.

Mr. Allen: Does the Secretary of State accept that they are the very people who are facing an ever-diminishing state pension? They read about the massive profits announced by the electricity companies over the last week or so and hear of fat salaries being paid to the chairman and directors of British Gas. Will the Secretary of State give those people some hope for the future by restoring pensions to the levels at which they would have been if they had been index-linked in the way that they were under the last Labour Government?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead anybody. The retirement pension has been index-linked to the retail prices index and its value has been fully and faithfully protected. The social reality reflected in the earlier answers from my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) is that this age group includes a growing number of people benefiting from the development of occupational and personal pensions.

Family Credit

Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of current family credit applications are being approved.

Mr. Jack: I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the success rate for family credit claims in May 1991 was 74·1 per cent., the highest ever.

Mr. Sayeed: May I say to my hon. Friend how welcome are the Government's effective efforts in increasing the take-up of this important benefit? Are not the two great advantages of the benefit that it provides an added incentive for people to work their way out of their difficulties, unlike the FIS system, and that this system pays 272 per cent. more for the average family?

Mr. Jack: Earlier I alluded to the percentage of people on different levels of family credit. For many it is a stairway back into the world of work. The improvements that we shall make, with the reduction of hours, will introduce more people to the opportunities available and we shall be looking at further campaigns to ensure that the message continues to get through to those who need help.

Mr. Winnick: Should not there be some concern about the many people whom employers are exploiting by paying them the lowest possible wage? I am glad about the take-up of benefit, because anything that increases the income of such people is to be welcomed, but we must remember that the main responsibility should be with the employer. Some poorly paid workers are bound to compare their plight with the position of the chairman of

British Gas, with his obscene increase of 66 per cent. Perhaps we can have some reflections from the Government about what happened last week.

Mr. Jack: Sometimes Labour Members do not seem to be living in the real world. I should like to take the hon. Gentleman to a biscuit factory in my constituency, where many of the work force are able to obtain family credit. The employer puts on display in the entrance hall a copy of the family credit pack. Those people are on seasonal employment, making biscuits for the Christmas trade. Their hourly rate is quite reasonable, but the number of hours that they work each week is not sufficient to give them an adequate income for their families. However, their income is made adequate because they are able to claim family credit.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Church Urban Fund

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what was the number of commissioners at the last meeting of the Church Commissioners, (a) voting for and (b) voting against (i) the proposal to use £1 million of the Church Commissioners funds towards the church urban fund and (ii) the proposal to use £0·5 million of the Church Commissioners' funds towards the church urban fund; whether the Church Commissioners follow a policy of majority voting at their meetings; and when the Church Commissioners will implement the wishes of the commissioners on this subject as decided at their last meeting.

Mr. Michael Alison: (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The hon. Gentleman refers to the last meeting of the commissioners' board of governors, on 23 May. It is not the commissioners' practice to disclose voting figures relating to the internal and confidential discussions, but all the board's decisions, including those to which I am about to refer, are made on a majority vote, after the expression of opinion by individual governors. The board was meeting to decide recommendations for the allocation of surplus income to the commissioners' annual general meeting, to be held on 26 June. In the light of financial problems caused by the recession, but with considerable reluctance, it decided that it was unable to recommend a further immediate grant to the church urban fund, but would review the position towards the end of this year.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that answer, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is widespread anger and disbelief because it is widely known that the majority view of the board of governors was that the church urban fund should receive £1 million, or at least £500,000, in grant from the Church Commissioners? It expressed that view in a vote at its last meeting. Is the reality that the annual general meeting this Wednesday of the Church Commissioners has the power to continue to enact the policy of the Church and the new archbishop to give money to the church urban fund, or will the AGM be told that it is not in its power to deal with a recommendation by saying, "We do not accept the


recommendation. We believe that we should give money to the church urban fund"? A cut because of the recession may be acceptable, but a removal of all grant is not.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is being a little alarmist about the church urban fund. The majority voting that he quoted—it has not been published—refers to the second review meeting later in the year. The majority voting reflected the preference of the majority of governors in relation to the subsequent meeting.
The hon. Gentleman knows that, because of its substantial reserves, there will be no cuts this year in the grants paid by the church urban fund. If he reads the annual report of the fund, he will find that it received more income from investments last year than it disbursed in grants. There is nothing scandalous or undesirable going on in relation to the fund.

Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that much of the funding of the church urban fund comes from parishes through the payment of quota? Does he agree that over the years heroic sums have been raised by way of quota for the fund, often from small parishes that have been asked to carry a huge burden? The decision that my right hon. Friend announced today will not prejudice the moneys that are going into the fund and it will be greatly welcomed by the many thousands of fund-raisers in small parishes throughout the country.

Mr. Alison: I endorse my hon. Friend's reference to the particular generosity of small parishes. I am sure, however, that he will bear in mind the fact that there is some potential buoyancy, to put it no higher, in the amounts contributed through parish collections. The average donation of church members is only £2 a week, which is about 2 per cent. of their average net personal disposable income. The average donation is not a gigantic sum.

Redundant Churches

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many redundant churches have been sold or leased to churches which are not mainstream Christian denominations.

Mr. Alison: Since 1969, 90 redundant churches have been acquired for worship by other Christian bodies. It is not for the commissioners to judge which of these are "mainstream", in the terms of the question, but I am letting the hon. Gentleman have a list of those which have been made available.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I welcome redundant churches being taken over by Sikhs and Muslims for their temples. I am concerned about some of the right-wing, fundamentalist, out-to-lunch religious groups, such as the Ronald Reagan holy jellybean church. I have a letter from a friendly cleric in the east end of London, in which he tells me that some loony churches are telling members of their congregations that to vote Labour will damn their eternal souls or that it would cause their bottoms to drop off. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would deprecate such wild statements being made. I hope that he will encourage the Church Commissioners to ensure that the loony fundamentalist churches do not get hold of redundant buildings.

Mr. Alison: If the loony left in the London Labour party were to take to the Christian religion, I suspect that it would swing markedly to the right. The loony religious aspect to which the hon. Gentleman referred rarely finds expression in overt political dispositions, of either the right or the left. Where there is any doubt whether the church is mainstream in the Christian sense of the word, consultations are widely held locally. The hon. Gentleman will be invited to sit in judgment on whether a mainstream church is well represented by a loony fundamentalist church. I hope that when he meets some of the fundamentalist churches, especially from the Afro-Caribbean sector, he will discern how extremely desirable, honourable and religious—in the best sense of the word—they are.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

Director of Works

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer of 10 May, Official Report, column 603, what evaluation he has made of the value for money of paying the sum referred to to Saxon Bampfylde as headhunters in order to select a new director of works for the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. A. J. Beith: (On behalf of the House of Commons Commissioners): The Commission itself decided that management consultants should be used to assist in making an appointment to the important new post of director of works. The firm concerned was chosen from a list of six originally approached. The price charged was at the lower end of the tenders and I understand that the firm performed its duties very well. I expect an announcement of the name of the director of works to be made shortly.

Mr. Dalyell: What evidence does the hon. Gentleman have for using the words, "very well"? The firm having netted a cool £20,500 from the taxpayer, should not the House expect that in that which is done in its name a certain courtesy of confidence should be extended to candidates asked to apply by civil servants and permanent secretaries who have known them for a long time?

Mr. Beith: There were more than 200 applicants for that post and the consultants did a great deal of work in looking at the applications. If the hon. Gentleman has come across an unsatisfactory communication of some kind, I should be happy to look into the matter.

Mr. John Garrett: On recruitment, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the reply that he gave me on 14 May, when he would not tell me what the educational qualifications were for the Clerk's Department?

Mr. Speaker: That is a bit wide of the question.

Mr. Beith: I was going to point out, Mr. Speaker, that that supplementary did not arise from the original question.

Refreshment Department

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is (a) the average wage per


hour of those working in the House of Commons Refreshment Department, (b) the average percentage of hours worked that is paid for at other than ordinary rates and (c) the average number of hours worked; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Beith: The average hourly wage of full-time industrial staff in the Refreshment Department is £4·67. The hourly rates from which that figure derives range from £7·32 to £4·18; it also compares with average hourly rates in the catering trade of £3·65 for men and £3·14 for women.
It has not been possible to provide meaningful information on the other parts of my hon. Friend's question. The Commission is not satisfied with the form in which financial administration is currently available to the management and following the Ibbs report it will be one of the principal duties of the new director of finance and administration to review financial and management information systems.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his factual answer. Many of the people who work in the House live in my constituency and, as their representative, I must tell my hon. Friend that one of their great concerns is that their wages are not sufficient to enable them to stay here. The level of staff retention in the service Departments of the House is lower than it might be. Can we please consider the matter, as we want to hold on to good staff, whom the House values and would like to continue to employ?

Mr. Beith: The Commission is constrained by the statutory duty to keep pay rates in line with those of the civil service. However, it seeks to retain staff and there are some remarkably loyal and long-serving staff in the Departments of the House. The Commission will do its best to ensure that they have a satisfactory career.

Sittings

Mr. Butler: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what are the estimated savings in running costs if the House of Commons retained its average length of sitting days but imposed a limit of midnight on all proceedings.

Mr. Beith: The total savings possible as a result of the House deciding to alter its hours of sitting would depend upon a number of factors, such as the predictability of the duration of sittings, the terms of any renegotiated conditions of service that might be necessary and whether there was an overall reduction in sitting hours. Those factors would be difficult and costly to quantify. I do not think that the exercise could be justified unless the House was considering specific proposals.

Mr. Butler: Nevertheless, does the hon. Gentleman agree that such savings are likely to be considerable, because much money is spent in sustaining our acts of collective masochism? That money is not a good investment in our democracy.

Mr. Beith: Yes, Sir, so long as there was an overall reduction in the hours during which the House sat and a great deal of work did not bunch up, to such an extent that additional staff had to be recruited to deal with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Select Committee on Scottish Affairs

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent meetings he has held with opposition parties to discuss the establishment of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): None, recently.

Mrs. Ewing: Surprise, surprise. Is not it appalling that given that there is much speculation that the House may review its procedures and mechanisms for working, it is still in breach of one of its Standing Orders through its failure to appoint a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs at a time when many issues in the Scottish economy and Scottish society need investigation? Is the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman's Back Benchers from Scotland more important to him than the rights of the Scottish nation? Or has he just given up altogether?

Mr. MacGregor: No, and I have been in Scotland all this weekend. The hon. Lady should not be surprised at my answer, because on 22 May in response to a question from her I said that I did not expect to add anything about a Scottish Select Committee after the recess and there has been no change in circumstances to warrant further meetings. The hon. Lady also asked me on that occasion about progress on the Scottish Grand Committee; I am pleased to be able to tell the House that progress has been made on that matter. The Committee met twice last week and will meet tomorrow and at least two more dates have been fixed.

Mr. John Marshall: How many representations has my right hon. Friend received from the Scottish people on this issue?

Mr. MacGregor: Personally, I have received none.

Mr. McKelvey: Nevertheless, should not an answer be given to the question why we continue to be in breach of our Standing Orders? Is not this the mother of Parliaments? Why does the right hon. Gentleman continue not to do his duty and why is he sustaining a policy of neglect as regards Scotland?

Mr. MacGregor: There is no policy of neglect—I have just said that the Scottish Grand Committee has been meeting regularly—and nor is the House in breach of its Standing Orders. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the debate on 20 December 1988, the House recognised the inability of the Committee of Selection to nominate hon. Members to serve on the Scottish Affairs Committee.

Oral Questions

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council what is his estimate of the average number of oral questions submitted each day; how many of these are committed to written status after failing to secure a place in the ballot for oral questions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: The average number of oral questions submitted each day is approximately 170. It is estimated


that only about 1 per cent. are retabled by hon. Members as written questions after being unsuccessful in the shuffle for oral questions. The evidence suggests that the procedural change relating to the printing of questions has been a successful innovation and is widely accepted by the House.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when hon. Members have taken the trouble to table questions, they have done so for a particular purpose and that it would be valuable if those questions were answered? Does he therefore agree that questions that are not among the first 30 drawn in the ballot should automatically be tabled as written questions?

Mr. MacGregor: That was neither recommended nor agreed and there is a good reason for that. It is open to any hon. Member who wishes to have his question answered to retable it as a written question and the fact that only 1 per cent. have done so suggests that many are satisfied. Moreover, the House has a duty to use taxpayers' money wisely and the change has saved several hundred thousand pounds in printing costs alone.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the right hon. Gentleman include in that 1 per cent. my question to the Prime Minister, which I have tabled seven times, but which has remained unanswered seven times because I was not lucky in the shuffle, asking about information requested from the sequestrators of the National Union of Mineworkers? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, on a matter such as the appalling situation that has arisen in relation to the NUM and the lawyers, when a man has tabled a question five times, that question should at least be answered orally?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is no different from any other hon. Member; if his question is unsuccessful in the shuffle, it is not reached during oral questions.

Mr. Barry Field: At risk of sounding like a long-playing gramophone record, may I again draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, if an oral question is not reached, an answer to it still appears on the board? Surely it would be sufficient just to print it in the record and it is not necessary to have a great paper chase when an oral question is not reached. Would not that save considerable resources and money?

Mr. MacGregor: It is a different matter when an oral question is not reached because it is one that was likely to be answered. We are talking about circumstances in which a question is unsuccessful in the shuffle and is not retabled by the hon. Member in question. When that happens, the question is not answered; nor is an answer put on the board. I believe that that is right, because the practice involves considerable savings in civil servants' time and because the original practice has been proved not to be necessary.

Sittings

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council what further discussions he has had in relation to hours of work and procedures in the House of Commons; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been having a number of discussions and hope to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. Skinner: Why cannot the Leader of the House make an announcement? Is it because he does not know how to deal with the request that has probably been made about the ending of the pairing system, another name for which is organised truancy, or has he got caught up in requests coming from the Common Market that all these MEPs and bureaucrats—federalists—should be allowed in here to crawl all over the place? Who is running the right hon. Gentleman's Department? Is it Jacques Delors?

Mr. MacGregor: It has nothing to do with either point. The pairing system has nothing to do with our hours of work and procedures. The question of access to various parts of Parliament—of the building—by MEPs is being considered by the Services Committee, but that is an entirely different matter from the points made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend make a serious effort to produce the review of working hours? It has become a fetish or shibboleth for Ministers, and other right hon. and hon. Members with important responsibilities, to walk around like ashen-faced zombies through overwork late at night. There is no merit in that; it makes no sense and brings the House no credit outside. Will my right hon. Friend do something, fast?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that there are any zombies here.
In the past year or so we have changed our procedures on a number of issues, including private Members' Bills, ten-minute Bills, the tabling of oral questions and, in particular, the scrutiny of European legislation. The change involving European Standing Committees has already had a marked effect on the number of late sittings in the House. That is a considerable improvement and I think it important to make it work.
As for the review, there is a wide variety of views in the House about what changes should be made. I consider it important to proceed on the basis of some agreement and that is what is currently in my mind.

Dr. Cunningham: The Leader of the House will find a large measure of agreement and support for any proposal that he may present for a wide-ranging review of our practices and procedures, our sitting hours and related matters. May I urge him to present such a proposal, following his normal meticulous consultations? Will he also make an oral statement in the Chamber, so that the wide range of views can be expressed and we can have a genuine exchange here, rather than dealing with it by way of a written reply?

Mr. McGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I share a number of views about the ways in which we can improve the workings of the House and I have always been extremely grateful for the co-operative manner in which he has approached such issues. This is very much a House of Commons matter. What has emerged from the many discussions in which I have participated is that wide variety of views. There is often a conflict of opinions, not between the two sides of the House but between hon. Members of all parties.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's point about speed. I shall certainly address that; as he knows, I am undertaking consultations. I also noted his request for an oral statement.

Exterior Refurbishment

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on progress in refurbishing the exterior of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will be aware that the stonework repair and cleaning programme has now reached the Victoria Tower. Good progress is being made.

Mr. Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the general public are extremely pleased with the progress that

has been made in improving the exterior of the Palace? Are there any plans to continue the work in the interior courtyard to improve the view for the staff?

Mr. MacGregor: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The work has greatly enhanced this part of London and an historic building and it is widely appreciated. It is intensive work and must be undertaken at times that cause the least inconvenience to Members of both Houses.
We intend to draw up plans and agree them with both Houses before the Victoria Tower work is completed, so that the work on the interior courtyards can follow without a break. It will be expensive and will involve a good deal of disruption, so it may take a considerable time.

Youth Treatment Centres

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the statement first; then I will call the hon. Members.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the result of an independent inquiry into complaints made by a young person about her treatment at the St. Charles youth treatment centre at Brentwood, and about management changes that I am making there today.
St. Charles is one of two Department of Health youth treatment centres. The other is the Glenthorne centre at Erdington, Birmingham. Between them, they cater for up to 70 young people convicted of very grave criminal offences, or with the most serious behavioural difficulties, whose needs cannot be met elsewhere in the child care system.
In January this year, through the formal complaints procedure available to residents in the centres, a young person made serious allegations about her treatment at St. Charles youth treatment centre, Brentwood. On instructions from my hon. Friend the Minister of Health, my Department immediately commissioned an independent professional inquiry convened by Mrs. Marian Preston, a consultant clinical psychologist. I am grateful to Mrs. Preston and to her colleagues for their scrupulous investigation. They found evidence to substantiate three of the complaints—the injection of sedative drugs without consent, and on some occasions under restraint; prolonged, and on some occasions unjustified, use of separation; and exclusion of the young person from proper participation in reviews held about her case at the centre.
A management review of the St. Charles centre by the social services inspectorate, done at the same time as the independent professional inquiry, suggests that the practices about which the independent inquiry expressed concern were not isolated. It suggests also poor management control at the centre and an inadequate discharge of its reporting obligations to my Department.
I have placed summaries of both reports in the Vote Office. Some details are excluded on grounds of medical and personal confidentiality, but the findings and recommendations are given in full.
To check whether those problems were present in the other centre, Glenthorne, which adopts a different treatment approach, I asked the social services inspectorate to scrutinise the relevant aspects of practice at that centre too. The SSI's scrutiny revealed no comparable weaknesses at Glenthorne.
The complaints inquiry team also expressed concern about the extent to which my Department had followed up the findings of an earlier 1988 SSI inspection, published in May 1989. A great many of the SSI's recommendations have been implemented, but I am arranging an urgent review to make sure that the Department acted with proper vigour and judgment.
Responsibility for the two centres is laid clearly by law on the Secretary of State for Health. I much regret that a young person had grounds for serious complaint about her treatment at one of them. I am therefore taking immediate steps to bring this specialised but important area of my responsibilities under better control, and to introduce more reliable and more open scrutiny—and am making this statement so that the House may know of those measures at once.
The House will understand that I needed to act swiftly. Uncertainty or speculation about management change would have undermined control and care, in a facility where continuity in both is imperative. The steps that I am taking are as follows. First, the director of St. Charles centre, his deputy, and another member of staff have today been suspended from their duties on full pay, pending disciplinary investigation. They have been replaced by a new management team seconded from the Glenthorne centre in Birmingham. Their prime task is to ensure the safety and the welfare of the young people.
Secondly, to ensure properly independent and open scrutiny of the care provided in both centres, I am establishing a special advisory group, which will watch over their care practices with particular regard to children's rights. Mrs. Winifred Tumim, until recently chairman of the Independent Living Fund, has agreed to chair the group, and I shall publish its periodic reports.
Thirdly, the investigations reinforce the Government's view, made public last year, that the two centres would benefit from a new and integrated management structure. That will include the appointment of a sole chief professional manager; better arrangements for advising him or her on relevant developments in the main stream of child care in conditions of security; and more explicit and reliable procedures for accountability to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and me. That new management structure will be introduced from 1 April next year. I shall consult the new advisory group on its details, and will in due course give them to the House.
My first duty is the care of the young people in the centres, but I must consider also those directly responsible for providing that care. Their work is important and often very difficult. They must be given a stable environment in which to absorb those major changes. My hon. Friend the Minister and I therefore decided not to pursue for the time being the idea of amalgamating the two centres at the Birmingham site, even though from April next they will both be part of a unified youth treatment organisation, and both be subject to scrutiny by Mrs. Tumim's group, as soon as its other members are appointed.
I believe that the steps that I have taken represent a decisive response to problems uncovered initially by our own complaints procedure and by reports that the Department itself commissioned. I hope that they will be welcome to the House.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: The Secretary of State's statement is wholly welcome. It is crucial that the young people at the centres and the staff who work there—and the families of the young people concerned—are confident that they are properly and effectively managed, and that that responsibility is scrupulously observed.
The 1988 report to which the Secretary of State referred made many criticisms of the St. Charles centre, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to order an urgent review of


each and every one of the report's recommendations, to establish what has and what has not been done—and why. We should like it published. If there has been any interference with the implementation of those recommendations, those responsible should be identified.
Clearly, the Secretary of State has confidence in the operation of Glenthorne and the work carried out there, and that is a welcome reassurance for its staff, the young people and their families.
The young person who made the allegations in January has been named in the press, but as the right hon. Gentleman did not name her, I certainly will not. Did she make the allegations while she was still at St. Charles, or after she had gone to Glenthorne? The House would be interested to know whether she had the confidence to use the compliants procedure while she was still at St. Charles. If she had not made the allegations, would there have been an inquiry? Other young people must be involved. We assume that a director and a deputy director would not be suspended because of one individual case—although that may have been so in this case, because the allegations that have been proved were very serious.
We wholly concur with the action that the Secretary of State has announced today. His first decision was clearly required on the basis of what has been made public. His second decision was crucial, as there must be some independent overview of the management of such centres. I use the word "independent"—although the right hon. Gentleman did not use it—because a special advisory group, whose reports will be published, will provide the necessary element of independence, something that hitherto has been missing.
The Secretary of State's third decision was that those centres—which have a combined total population of only 70 young people—should have the same management approach. It is not right that those two centres should operate from a different philosophical standpoint. To outsiders and lay people, it is almost as though the two bunches of experts have been using young people as guinea pigs to find different ways of treatment, whether success or failure. There should be a commonality of overview.
The Secretary of State was right to make his statement, and even more important was the fact that he made it orally to the House.

Mr. Waldegrave: Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has hit the nail exactly on the head. I am grateful for his welcome for my statement. As I have said, the further reports on whether or not there were failings within my Department involve the protection of individuals in case there are any disciplinary aspects, but they will be published.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman has some knowledge about the Glenthorne unit, and I can confirm that it has not shown any signs of having the same sort of problems. Indeed, the inspectors' report cited examples of outstanding professional practice.
I cannot say that I would be certain that I would be standing here today if that young person had not made her allegations. However, I believe that, in the end, we would have realised that certain questions needed answers. The case is an example of the complaints procedure working. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman, who makes a

fair point—this is reflected in the report—that the young person made her complaints at Glenthorne, not at St. Charles. That raises further questions that need answering.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the independent overview would be well conducted by Mrs. Tumim. Those who know her, know her to be a person of independent judgment. Her reports, and those of her board, will be published.
I agree strongly with what the hon. Gentleman said at the end of his questions. We cannot have closed worlds competing with one another with different philosophies. All that should be open to proper review by my Department and by the House. In the phrase of the hon. Gentleman, it is not a proper area for experiments.

Sir Robert McCrindle: While paying tribute to much of the work that has been done at St. Charles over the past 20 years, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that I commend and endorse his attitude, as outlined in his statement, and following the independent inquiry? He will be aware that there are some worrying aspects to the matter. Is he satisfied that, following the report, procedures for that most delicate of matters—the use of sedation against the will of the young person, sometimes under restraint—will not allow any repetition of that most disagreeable case at the St. Charles treatment centre?
Can the Secretary of State further confirm that, in future, all those young persons who will be detained at St. Charles will be made aware of their rights in the light of the fact that, it seems to me, the report implies: that the young person who complained was not made aware of her rights during the stay at St. Charles?
Finally to echo the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will my right hon. Friend confirm that the complaints procedure, no matter what the differences may have been in the past, is now precisely the same as between St. Charles and Glenthorne? It is significant, is it not, that the young person concerned felt unable, for whatever reason, to make that complaint while at St. Charles and, on the face of it, appears to have had to wait for transfer to Glenthorne before making it? Will my right hon. Friend give the House reassurance that, as of this moment and before the very desirable changes that he announced are implemented, there will be equality in terms of the complaints procedure at both St. Charles and Glenthorne?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, whose constituency includes St. Charles and who has paid close attention to these matters. Much good work has been done at St. Charles over the years. It is because of the prima facie evidence that things have been going wrong recently that I have taken decisive action swiftly today. The allegations are serious. It is also because my hon. Friend asked the question, and because it is clear from the report that we do not believe that the allegations were confined to this isolated case, that I have taken this action.
I am well aware that at St. Charles—I have the material with me—material was handed to the people going to that centre explaining what their rights were. However, it was for the new management there to make absolutely certain not only that the young people there had a formal right to complain but also that they had the capacity to do so and felt free to do so. Clearly they did at Glenthorne; in one sense, that is why I am standing here today.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for his response. Can the Secretary of State tell the House when and why the young person who made the complaint that has led to this report was transferred to Glenthorne? As Glenthorne is in my constituency, may I ask the Secretary of State to assure the House that the practice, now properly condemned at St. Charles, has not formed and does not form any part of the regime at Glenthorne?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also undertake that the review at St. Charles—and, indeed, of his Department—will investigate why the reason for this apparent delay in implementing the recommendations of the social servicesinspectorate's report, published in September 1989? Finally, will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the staff at both Glenthorne and St. Charles for their skill and devotion in dealing with some of the most difficult children that we ask others to handle on our behalf?

Mr. Waldegrave: To start at the end of the hon. Gentleman's questions, I join him in paying that tribute. These children are not comparable to those in a normal children's home. I am happy to say that this is a small number out of a population of 56 million. We are talking of between 50 and 70 children, many of whom have committed appalling crimes, while others have very severe behavioural difficulties. These are the most difficult children of all: that is why considerable resources are made available. We are talking about children's centres that cost about £2,000 per week per child. The staff ratio to child is about 3:1. It was the doctrines and the processes of reporting that went wrong.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, the person in question was transferred to Glenthorne because Glenthorne has an open unit as well as a closed unit. After discussion with the host local authority, it was thought right that she should be moved, as the next stage in what it is hoped will be her return to normality. That was in December, but it may have been late November, last year.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) mentioned unsatisfactory practices. Everything that I am saying is aimed at showing that we believe that Glenthorne rightly retains the confidence of the House, which is why we are transferring a management team from Glenthorne to St. Charles. The strict rules on sedation under restraint and separation, which existed at St. Charles but may not have been fully carried out—thereby hangs the problem—will be observed in future, and everything that I have said today is designed to produce a structure that will ensure no falling off from those standards.
Aspects of the original social services inspectorate report were not carried through properly. The delay and anxiety and the fact that recommendations were not carried through, despite instructions from the Department, have caused us the most concern. We must therefore ensure that communications were correct at both ends of the chain of command.

Mr. Tom Cox: The House will welcome the frankness with which the Secretary of State has made his statement, but he will be aware that the nature of the offences that these youngsters have committed, and, sadly,

their personal problems, sometimes mean that, although they are aware of complaints procedures, they do not always follow them. What independent involvement will there be with such homes to ensure that if, sadly, youngsters do not have the confidence to talk to staff, they can build up that confidence with someone independent of those who run the home?

Mr. Waldegrave: To achieve the legitimate objectives that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we should first look to the original local authority, which stands in loco parentis and has responsibility; secondly, as the report says, we should take steps to ensure that children have an independent visitor or adviser. That is what the hon. Gentleman is recommending, and I agree with him. We must consider that recommendation to ensure that it is effectively carried through.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Children from all our constituencies go to these schools and homes, and their parents will be reassured by the common-sense way in which those on the two Front Benches have approached this awful problem.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) mentioned the skill and devotion of the schools' staff. Will my right hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, ensure that, in the next 18 months or two years, staff are not destabilised by the necessary physical alterations that have been made by the latest legislation?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. I have made the statement on the day when we are making the changes to ensure that there is not a long period of speculation and argument, which would be intensely destabilising not only for those involved in this difficult work but, perhaps more important, for the youngsters in their care. That is why we have acted rather swiftly today.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. These schools are subject to Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools and many of the staff have professional teaching backgrounds. Everything that I have said today and our work in the forthcoming weeks is aimed at maintaining the best possible continuity of care for the children concerned.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a narrow statement. I shall call the Liberal Democrats' health spokesman, and then we must move on.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: In echoing the welcome that has been given to the statement by the Secretary of State and the decisions that will follow from it, may I ask him to confirm that the key issue for the new management and the new structure which he envisages will be the effectiveness of the appeal system. Its effectiveness has been greatly bolstered by his statement, but there is still a small question mark—to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded—over the likelihood that an individual will appeal when he is in an institution which he believes treats him extremely unfavourably.
I wish to underscore the welcome that many others have given to the appointment of Mrs. Winifred Tumim.


How long will it be before the right hon. Gentleman can say more about the composition of the advisory committee over which he will preside?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall give the names of the other members of the advisory committee as soon as we have them—perhaps in a written answer, if that is agreeable to the House. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to Mrs. Winifred Tumim, who is an independently minded person with relevant experience.
The efficacy of the complaints procedure has been demonstrated at Glenthorne, where this story came to light. I hope to be able to say to the House that I am equally confident that the procedure is operating properly at St. Charles. Requirements have been in place at St. Charles. One of the first requirements on the new management there will be to ensure that it is not just an empty right but that it is properly and practically exerciseable.

Points of Order

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can help us with our inquiries into the whereabouts of the Secretary of State for Energy. We expected him to be in the House to make a statement about the pay greed of directors of British Gas and of the privatised electricity companies, who are lining their pockets at the expense of the rest of the country. The Secretary of State told me in a letter at the beginning of this month that this was a matter for the shareholders, but the Government are still a shareholder in every one of the electricity companies, and they are a 40 per cent. shareholder in National Power and PowerGen.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: This is not a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. How can I determine whether it is a point of order when the Lady shouts in that extraordinary manner from a sedentary position? She should not do that.

Mr. Dobson: I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether the Secretary of State for Energy has asked for your agreement to come to the House to make a statement about whether he intends to exercise his right as a shareholder to object to this bare-faced greed. Will the right hon. Gentleman take action to support the Prime Minister's call for pay restraint, or are these pay increases what the right hon. Gentleman promised those bosses before privatisation? Are these increases the pay-off that follows the sell-off? If they are not, the House is entitled to know what the Government intend to do. We are entitled to a statement—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has made his point. I have no idea where the Secretary of State is. He has not asked to make a statement on this matter. The hon. Member's points will have been heard by Government Front Benchers with responsibility in such matters. No doubt the request could be raised through the usual channels.

Mr. Dobson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: How can it be further to the point of order? It is not my responsibility.

Mr. Dobson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is crucial that the House should exercise its remaining powers over these privatised industries. The only reason that we are not being given an opportunity to find out is that the Secretary of State for Energy is hiding away from the scrutiny of the House. We want him here. He is responsible. He has the power to block most of the pay increases, if that is what the Government want.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Robert Hayward: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Haynes first.

Mr. Haynes: I am trying to overcome the Conservative lot. Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You should find out where the Secretary of State for Energy is and drag him here by the scruff of his neck.

Mr. Speaker: That is not my function.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Conservative Members believe that Labour Members are playing for time because they were short of their spokesman for the next debate. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was not raising a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that nobody is playing for time, because this is a Supply day. I said that I would take a point of order from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order that I had intended to raise at the end of Question Time? The fact that hon. Members do not rise in their place during a statement does not necessarily mean that they do not wish to be called; they may wish to be called at the end, as I did.
I ask you, Sir, to reflect on what happened today. You will recall that, three weeks ago, there was a statement on pindown in Staffordshire, and that, during that statement, Labour councillors in Staffordshire were repeatedly attacked by a series of Conservative Members and, on one occasion, by a Minister. Will you contrast that with the reflective mood of my hon. Friends today, when, although there was clearly a Government responsibility, we did not seek to exploit it?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot be held responsible for the way in which hon. Members ask their questions. That is not a matter for me. It is only fair to the Chair for an hon. Member to show his interest in a particular statement by rising at the beginning. Today, the hon. Gentleman knew when we were coming to the end of Question Time; other Members began to rise, and he was one of them.

Mr. Barry Porter: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, which you ruled was not a point of order.We have now spent nearly 10 minutes on a spurious matter. Can that time be added to this afternoon's debate? Clearly, the Opposition do not want it to take place, and they certainly do not want to listen to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields).

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On an issue that, tragically, might not be able to wait 48 hours until Foreign Office questions and on which I gave your office notice this morning—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to pursue that matter in this way. Conversations that he has had at the weekend outside the House with others—no matter how distinguished—alleging certain things cannot be raised as a point of order. There will be opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to raise

such issues during Foreign Office questions, as my office told him. He must not seek to evade my instructions by getting around them in this way.

Mr. Dalyell: It is not a matter of getting around them. In Kuwait, lives are at risk because of the actions being taken now by the Kuwaiti Government for whom we went to war. They are dumping stateless people at the mercy of those in southern Iraq, and they are doing so with the absolute certainty that those people might have their throats cut before Wednesday. It is a matter of considerable urgency that the people who built Kuwait are being taken—often at random—without anything that we would recognise as a trial, and dumped at the mercy of Saddam Hussein. Is it not up to the House to ask for at least a statement on what the United Nations or the British Government are doing about the people for whom we have at least some moral responsibility?

Mr. Speaker: It is one thing to ask for a statement, which the hon. Gentleman has now done, but it is another to use a point of order to seek an emergency debate.

Mr. Tony Banks: For the sake of the record, Mr. Speaker, will you make it publicly known that, should any ex-Prime Ministers wish to catch your eye in the debate on Wednesday, they will have no difficulty in doing so? I ask that because it seems that the Iron Maiden has yet to make her maiden speech as a Back Bencher.

Mr. Speaker: That is hypothetical. I call the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency at the weekend, so I will hear him. [Interruption.]

Mr. Haynes: I am not abusing the Chair, Mr. Speaker. That is not fair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred to the fact that the Secretary of State for Energy holds shares on behalf of the nation. If we cannot have the Secretary of State here, will you organise a ballot in the House on behalf of the nation about the increase in salaries? Someone must decide, and it should be our responsibility to do so.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that there is any precedent for the Speaker organising such a ballot.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I will put together the next two motions on the Order Paper.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

HUMAN FERTILISATION

That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Special Exemptions) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

NORTH HULL HOUSING ACTION TRUST

That the draft North Hull Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. —[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

Opposition Day

15TH ALLOTTED DAY

Government of Liverpool

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. David Alton: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the incompetence, intimidation, waste and subservience to trade union dictation which have characterised left wing administration in Liverpool, and have caused untold damage to the city and its people; calls for broadly based government in the city to restore basic services and to pursue policies of fiscal rectitude, decentralised administration, partnership with private enterprise and consultation with the people of Liverpool; and believes that such an administration should be given strong backing by Her Majesty's Government.
Although the motion describes the consequences of 10 long years of destructive confrontational politics, it is also forward-looking in calling for a new partnership between local politicians in a broadly-based administration, and for partnerships between the private and public sectors and local and central Government.
In the past few weeks the city of Liverpool has once again been the subject of close media attention, some of which has been a distorted media caricature. Although no one will pretend that Liverpool does not have serious problems, many of its own council's making, there are two tales to tell about the one city and I shall first say a word about Liverpool's success stories.
Away from the industrial disputes and the antediluvian attitudes of some of the city's political dinosaurs, Liverpool has plenty of achievements. Last year, 23 million tonnes of cargo moved over the quays of Liverpool—an increase of 14 per cent., despite the fact that 1989–90 was a year of recession. In addition, 3,000 ships per year use our north docks and more than 12 new shipping services, handling containers, timber and other trades, have come to Liverpool since 1989. Last year, the port of Liverpool turned in profits of almost £11 million—its highest ever—and our free port, which handles £500 million worth of goods, is the most successful free port in the United Kingdom.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those very good figures are due to the slackening of the chains that had been imposed by the unions on the ports in Liverpool and to the removal of the dock labour scheme and, as a result, that Liverpool is now going great guns?

Mr. Alton: If the hon. Lady follows my speech, she will realise that there are two tales to tell—one is of a city that is prosperous and vibrant with a great, outward-looking and confident face, while the other is of the politics that have dragged the city down. There are two tales to tell.
The reality is a city where enterprise is confident and thriving. Strikes and poor performance at Liverpool's docks are a bitter memory, and the Mersey's strategic importance as a centre of national distribution is once again being recognised. The conventional wisdom is that Liverpool is strikebound, bankrupt, wasted and hopeless.

A national newspaper prints a photograph of a bedraggled, half-naked child and says, "This is Liverpool." That is about as fair as printing a photograph of the squalor to be found within a mile of the City of London and saying, "This is London." The truth is that 98 per cent. of all companies on Merseyside have not had strikes of any kind since 1982. Net output is now consistently higher on Merseyside than the national average.

Mr. Robert Hayward: Is the hon. Gentleman surprised that, at the start of the debate on Liverpool, only half Liverpool's Members of Parliament are present and that two Labour Members who represent Liverpool are not even in the Chamber?

Mr. Alton: I am not entirely surprised, because none of them was present for last week's Adjournment debate on empty housing, but I am glad that at least some of them are present today.
There is a myth that companies are unhappy to come to Liverpool, but Ford invested £40 million in its Liverpool factory last year alone and British Aerospace has invested £19 million in Liverpool airport and is proposing a £2 billion expansion.
It is true that 13·4 per cent. of our work force are unemployed, but 86 per cent. are in work. In excess of 100,000 of those people are employed in our city centre, with the new office developments at Mercury court, Moorfield, Matthew street, Albert dock and the refurbished Liver and India buildings adding to the total.
I have been particularly involved in the development of Wavertree technology park, a 64 acre parkland development launched in 1989 through a joint private and public initiative to attract major manufacturing and commercial investment. Some 40 companies now operate in the park, employing nearly 1,500 people. That park and Liverpool free port demonstrate the dividends of a united political approach.
A city stuffed with 2,500 listed buildings, boasting a fine orchestra, well-respected educational institutions and a thriving cultural life deserves better than the partial and subjective character assassination to which it has been subjected. The city council may be inefficient, but the city itself is not. The council should make itself worthy of the city that it governs. Anyone who visits the city—6 million people visited the Albert dock alone last year—will testify that the reality of Liverpool life belies the gross distortion.
The Secretary of State for the Environment can take deserved credit from the knowledge that the 2 millionth visitor walked through the doors of the Tate gallery on 14 May. He knows the difference between the myths and the reality of Liverpool life and will agree that the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), in the House last Friday amount to a defamation of a community and do nothing to build confidence in Liverpool. Having spent a decade telling unemployed people to get on their bikes and leave Liverpool, it is grossly irresponsible for a Minister to describe Liverpudlians as living on the "Costa del Dole" and to suggest that they contribute disproportionately to drugs, crime and prostitution. The Minister knows that he would be prosecuted under the race relations legislation if he used such slander against traditional targets. It has


become all too easy to scapegoat Liverpool and to blame the victims. I hope that the Secretary of State will dissociate himself from that calumny.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was absent from our debate on Friday and that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) made no comment on that subject at the time. I make no apology for drawing attention to the difficulties caused by the abject failure of Liverpool local authority, as Liverpudlians in Bournemouth said over the weekend. Obviously, I do not castigate the entire Liverpudlian community, as the hon. Gentleman will hear if he finds time to stay in the Chamber for the rest of the debate.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification. However, as he well knows, only one Liberal Democrat Member is ever called in a debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), who also represents a Merseyside constituency, contributed to that debate. It is extraordinary that the Minister should have said:
I do not know whether that is true, but I have no reason to doubt that allegation."—[Official Report, 21 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 641]
Before a Minister makes such a damaging remark in the Chamber, he should take the trouble to find out if it is true. I am glad that the Minister has had the honour to withdraw his remarks today.
Those comments did nothing to help the city's image, but the city council has done a great deal to damage Liverpool in the past decade. Despite the exaggeration, there is no doubt that political excesses have impeded our development. Before anyone says, "Liverpool deserves what it gets—it voted for its council," I shall separate another fact from fiction.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: They kicked the Liberals out.

Mr. Alton: Despite the inverventions of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the majority of people in Liverpool have never voted for those confrontational politics. In the local elections this year, 56,000 people voted for the Liberal Democrats, compared with only 52,000 people who voted Labour. Even at the height of its power, Militant-led Labour never won a majority of the city's votes. Yet despite the popular vote, at no time since 1971 have the Liberals had an overall majority on the city council. For 10 of the past 20 years, including the last eight, Labour has had an overall majority on the council. For 16 of the past 20 years, Labour has been the largest party on the council, although between 1979 and 1983 it refused to govern and plunged the city into chaos.

Mr. Barry Porter: Is not the more important and significant point the fact that the vast majority of the citizens of Liverpool voted for no politician at all during that period, because they think so little of us?

Mr. Alton: The number of people voting in local elections increased throughout many of the years to which the hon. Gentleman refers, so his point is not entirely accurate. The turnouts in parliamentary elections in Liverpool are identical to those in the Wirral and elsewhere.
Labour has belatedly recognised the character of those wasted times by expelling a handful of those who were responsible. Some courage is now being shown by many who were silent during what the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has called "the Stalinist years". None the less, that courage is to be commended.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: The point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make is that the entrepreneurial spirit of Liverpool is alive and well but that we are concerned about the problems connected with the council. Will he confirm that the debate is not unassociated with the Liverpool, Walton by-election? If we extrapolate from the results of the 2 May council elections, we find that Labour polled 12,491 votes in the Walton constituency and the hon. Gentleman's party 10,687, giving Labour a narrow lead. Militant stood in only one ward and polled 1,626 votes to take Anfield. A divided party is in control of Liverpool council. That is the major problem that Liverpool faces.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention, which makes my case—

Mr. Skinner: It is a good job they did not have PR.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Bolsover says that it was a good job that we did not have proportional representation. If we had had PR, Militant would never have been in control in the first place. If there had been a fair result, reflecting the will of the people of Liverpool in May, the city would not be in its present chaos.

Mr. Skinner: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's second speech. I guess that there was a different speech before the Church leaders made their pronouncement at the weekend. That is why we hear this Worlock speech. If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of PR, why did he complain five minutes ago that the Liberal Democrats did not get overall control? As they had control along with somebody else several years ago, why did they make such a mess of things, and why did they get kicked out?

Mr. Alton: My point is not that we demand overall control on a minority of votes. The point of the motion—the hon. Gentleman should read it—is that it seeks a broadly based partnership. That would probably not be with the hon. Member for Bolsover, I must admit, or with his part of the Labour party. I hope that there are members of the Labour party and members of the Conservative party who put the city's interests first who would be prepared to work with us. It would be fascinating to know which of the two candidates in the Walton by-election the hon. Member for Bolsover will support and campaign for.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I ask the hon. Gentleman for an answer that his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Sir. C. Smith) promised viewers on "North Westminster" yesterday? He promised an explanation why, on six or seven occasions the Liberal Democrat group on the council has voted against the majority Labour position on the budget, after having entered into an agreement. I hope that, as a Liverpool Member, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)—and not his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale—will tell us why the Liberal Democrats have ducked out of the agreement.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point as it is a canard that has been thrown around over the past few days. If the hon. Gentleman studies what happened in Liverpool last week, he will see that the points that had been agreed in advance between the Liberal Democrat group and moderate Labour members were held to in the council meeting. The Labour group tried to push through a further 94 redundancies involving housing maintenance workers, which had not been agreed in advance and which were slipped in after a closed meeting which did not involve members of my own party. As a result, the second part of the motion was opposed by my colleagues. It was opposed in a Liberal Democrat amendment, for which four members of the so-called moderate group, members of the far left group and one of the two Conservatives voted. As a result the democratic will of the majority of council members was carried.

Mr. David Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman says that what he describes as the second budget decision arose directly from a decision that was encouraged by the Liberal group on Liverpool city council on 10 March to embark on a budget with £10 million of unspecified cuts. How does the hon. Gentleman square such cuts with not voting for them when the real position is known and decisions have to be taken?

Mr. Alton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it had never been discussed at any stage. Given that 5,900 council-owned properties are empty in the city, the last group of workers that we thought should be reduced further were repair and maintenance staff. Last year, £4·5 million was lost in uncollected rents on those properties and that money would have come to the city coffers if the decision had not been implemented. Grievous bodily harm has been inflicted upon Liverpool as a direct result of decisions taken and the politics practised in the city over the past 20 years. I shall give some examples.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alton: I shall give way towards the end of my speech.
Graham Dean, a gardener in one of our excellent city parks, once described to me how he went from looking after one of the world's best orchid collections to picking up, as he put it, "last night's fish and chips", because he refused to join industrial action he was sent to a leper colony, a local form of Siberia. When the law found in his favour, the council sent in the bulldozers to demolish the Harthill greenhouses so that men could not return to work there. The council subsequently told its employees to go home because it could not protect them from the intimidation which followed. [Interruption.] The headline in this morning's Liverpool Daily Post reads:
Scab councillor faces death threat ordeal.
That is today's headline—not one from 10 years ago.
In addition to intimidation, planning laws have been used in a highly suspect way. An early-day motion which I tabled in 1986 called for a police inquiry into corruption and my colleague, Councillor Rosemary Cooper, called in the police to investigate the Finch lane planning application. In that case the council owned the freehold and the Merseyside passenger transport executive owned the leasehold. The council facilitated a multi-million-pound deal on the basis that planning permission would be

forthcoming, either from the council or on appeal. Land worth £7 million commercially would have been sold for about £250,000 if the police had not intervened.
Payola planning still persists, and within the past month I have written to the Department of the Environment asking what it intends to do to separate the functions of property sales and planning. At present the burglar is far too closely identified with the watchdog and an independent mechanism is needed to examine applications where the council is the vendor. Nepotism has been combined with personal gain and bullying. Branch 5 of the GMB has become a byword for all the worst features of trade unionism.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about Mr. Heferon?

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that I raised that case in the first instance and, as a result, attempts were made to expel me—which is becoming quite common. As a result of my actions, that case was investigated and police action was taken.
A national union leader has called this the unacceptable face of British trade unionism. Branch 5 convener Ian Lowes administers a levy which brings in £10,000 per week. It is supposedly voluntary, but anyone who refuses to pay is unlikely to get overtime or perks. Ultimately, those who refuse to pay will find themselves in the leper colony to which Graham Dean was sent. Frances Kidd, a Labour councillor who voted for the redundancies announced last week, also works for the GMB. Since voting for the cuts, she has had to be locked in her office to protect her from union stewards calling her "scab" and she says that she has had death threats at her home. Even schoolchildren have been threatened. Pickets tried to stop children entering the Broadgreen comprehensive school. The headmaster, Ian Andain, said:
It was thuggery masquerading as trade unionism.
The Labour party criticised the Liberal administrations of the 1970s, but those were golden days compared with what was to follow. The Labour left has presided over all this. I vividly recall the bitter attacks made on me and others for speaking out and challenging abuses of power. This is not the stuff of history. Within the past 12 months, Labour, led by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), told Liverpool people to break the law and not to pay the poll tax. As a result, every citizen, rich or poor, has received an additional bill for £70·99.
The Liverpool Echo, in an editorial last week, warned the leader of the Opposition that there still remain major questions to be confronted. For example, it asked:
What about the role of the Broadgreen MP? Whose side is he on after the open split between Labour and the Broad Left? Expelling Militant councillors from the Labour party is one thing, but Mr. Kinnock must realise that the credibility of his party is damaged by some of his MPs.
Hon. Members may wonder what is the difference between Field and Fields. On Merseyside we have the answer. One constantly faces battles against deselection because he expounds moderate views and works with others across the political divide; the other sits with impunity within the parliamentary Labour party while espousing every cause of the Labour Militant Tendency.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I was interested by the hon. Gentleman's mention of the Labour leader calling for non-payment of poll tax. The hon. Gentleman should know that not only did the leader of the


Labour party express opposition to breaking the law, but his policy was confirmed by an overwhelming majority at the Labour party conference.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful for the explanation from the hon. Member for West Derby. I am sure that the House would like to hear from the hon. Member for Broadgreen or, if they were here, the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry).
The hon. Member for Broadgreen and his friends told the people of Liverpool that they would give all available resources to build houses. Instead, over that period, not a penny was spent on two thirds of the city's housing stock. As a result, 5,900 council properties are standing vacant and 12,000—on which there remain outstanding debts of £23 million—have been demolished in the past 10 years. Under the "spend now, pay later" policies, the city debt has risen to £800 million, on which the repayment of interest charges costs Liverpool people £10,000 every hour or £240,000 every day, and the Japanese and Swiss money-lenders have been the only beneficiaries.
The electorate were bribed with promises of £2 a week rent decreases that were never forthcoming, although rents were not increased for eight years. As a result, this year they have been increased by as much as £16 or £17 a week in some cases and on average by £8 a week. Meanwhile, rent arrears have reached £24 million.
Liverpool deserves much better. What should be done? Last year, with my colleague the then leader of the Liberal group on the city council, Councillor Paul Clark, I presented a charter for Liverpool which called for political partnership. Although it was then rejected by Councillor Harry Rimmer and the Labour party, it could still provide the basis for a constructive, broadly based administration.
The key points of the charter include recognition of the facts that it is disastrous for Liverpool to have a council in constant financial crisis, that population shift has led to serious under-funding by central Government; that, like Glasgow, we must make serious efforts to turn around our image; that empty properties must be better utilised; and that partnership at every level must be accelerated. The Liberal Democrats are prepared to play their part, on a formalised basis, in taking the difficult decisions and sharing the responsibility for the good government of the city, but not on the ad hoc take-it-or-leave-it basis offered by the city's minority leadership, which has recently led to informal relationships breaking down several times.
We want a formalised power-sharing partnership and a greater role for central Government, which must ensure that never again should local taxation allow a citizen to be charged for someone else's debt. I hope that the Government will be able to offer Liverpool people relief and redress. Bills of £70·99 for other people's debts are intolerable.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I am sure that every reasonable Member will be appalled by the story that the hon. Gentleman is telling us. He has made it clear, that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen Mr. Fields) is still a supporter of Militant. No doubt the hon. Member for Broadgreen will be supporting the Militant candidate in the Liverpool, Walton by-election. It will be up to the hon. Gentleman to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to confirm that.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) can tell us which Labour candidate the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) are supporting. There have been suggestions in national and Liverpool newspapers that they will be supporting the Militant candidate. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that neither of those Members has suggested that he is ill or abroad and thus unable to be present this afternoon? I can assure them that, if there were a debate about the area that I represent in part, or another area which is represented by other hon. Members, we would damned well be in our places to participate in it.

Mr. Alton: I find it extraordinary that the hon. Members for Garston and for Riverside are not here to speak in the debate. I have not been told that they are unable to attend, for whatever reason. No doubt other Labour Members will be able to explain who they will be supporting and why their two colleagues are not present.
With regard to the role of central Government, when the new local tax is drawn up by the Secretary of State for the Environment I hope that he will ensure that within the tax is a right of redress and a right of relief for residents of cities such as Liverpool. The people of Liverpool feel extremely aggrieved that an additional burden has been placed upon them this year.
Central Government should accept that under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 there is a need to organise contracts so that the backlog of uncollected refuse in Liverpool is cleared up and removed. Liverpool people are entitled to expect the basic services to be provided that they are called upon to fund. One of their fundamental complaints is that they are not getting value for money. The graphic photographs of Liverpool that have appeared in the press show hon. Members on both sides of the House what the people of Liverpool have to tolerate. I hope that a positive attempt will be made by the Secretary of State to assist the private company which is to be appointed to clear the debris.
In the long term, if Liverpool is to be resurgent we shall need flagship projects such as the proposed Mersey barrage, airport development, Channel 5 and a refurbished St. George's hall. In addition, the Secretary of State could immediately approve the housing corporation's vacant properties initiative and recognise the need to stimulate further housing co-operatives by reviewing housing association funding, which in Liverpool has been static again this year.
The present confrontational tactics—including rotting garbage, threats to close down cemeteries, redundancies which could have been achieved through natural wastage if policies of fiscal rectitude had been pursued, and the politics of Tammany hall—all combine to damage Liverpool. Instead of our city being used as a punchbag, as our bishops complained this weekend, it is entitled to expect from all its politicians a period of stable government and responsible leadership. That will require a formalised partnership based on good will and co-operation. Liverpool deserves fewer obituaries and a little help from its friends.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'reaffirms its belief in Liverpool as one of this country's great cities with a proud history and prospects for a secure future; condemns the incompetence, intimidation, waste and subservience to trade union dictation which have characterised successive administrations in Liverpool over the past decade and have caused untold damage to the City and its people; calls for better Government in the City to restore basic services and to pursue policies of fiscal rectitude, decentralised administration, partnership with central Government and private enterprise and consultation with the people of Liverpool; notes the steps taken by the present administration in response to the Government's compulsory competitive tendering legislation to put the interests of its residents first by contracting with a private sector firm for refuse collection; and commends the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition for supporting the Conservative policy of fair and open competition in Liverpool, in the knowledge that it is right, but observes with dismay the Labour Party's opposition to it elsewhere in the country.'
I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) had to say. I agree that the essence of the future of Liverpool requires an understanding of the significance of such a great provincial city, which is at the centre of a vital conurbation. It is perhaps the inheritor of one of our most dramatic pieces of municipal architecture and it is one of the most important cultural centres outside London. In my personal judgment, the Liverpool people are some of the most warm-hearted people to be found anywhere in the country. I say that after having spent many months—indeed, years—of my life associated with the city. There is a great deal of excellence and all too little of it features in the coverage that the city achieves.
I was interested in the list of attainments that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill provided. They are recent and they are significant, and almost all of them are the result of the inspiration and the leadership of the Conservative Government.
Despite the appalling circumstances that I will describe later, when the history of the 1980s is written, that will be seen as the point at which the revival of Liverpool's fortunes began.
There are some very imaginative large-scale projects now under way which will come to fruition during the remainder of this century. The Mersey basin campaign is the first attempt to clean, from the source to the sea, one of Britain's great rivers. The consequences of that campaign—the benefits to the people who live there and to the industries that will invest there—are incalculable. The scheme was begun 10 years ago under a Conservative adminstration.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred to the 6 million people who visit Albert dock. That is a figure of some significance. When I first visited Liverpool, when the Liberals were in control, the docks were a stretch of mile after mile of rotting toxic waste. The Liberals did not have much of a solution for coping with that. The achievement of restoring the Albert docks and the Mersey banks was the responsibility of this Conservative Administration.
When the urban development corporation took over those vast tracts of the inner city, I do not remember its being welcomed enthusiastically by the local Liberal leaders of the time, and I vividly remember our being

opposed hook and line by the Labour party whenever we suggested urban development corporations to clean things up.
The concept of BOOM-business opportunities on Merseyside—is a manifestation of the partnership that the Government sought to achieve within Liverpool and the wider conurbation. Today industrialists, commercial figures, companies, local authorities and the voluntary sector talk together. Why? It is because we refused to continue to distribute urban programme money unless they achieved a more harmonious relationship among themselves?
Painfully slowly, as a result of the reforms of the early 1980s, a new sense of confidence began to emerge. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill said that the Wavertree industrial park was launched in 1989, but he is about eight years behind the times. I launched that project in 1981 and without a shadow of doubt it is one of the most extraordinary—

Mr. Alton: I meant phase 2.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sorry; the hon. Gentleman is right. The concept was born in 1981; the triumphs were of the 1980s. The hon Gentleman may have attended upon the phase 2 extension of what the Government set up, but the idea that he played any part in achieving it is a flight of fancy of the most extreme Liberal sort. When the Liberals ran Liverpool the site consisted of 60 acres of rotting land owned, I believe, by British Rail, on the verge of land owned by a company—Plessey. We bought them together with Government money and created the concept of the Wavertree industrial park. It is one of the finest examples of how our inner cities can be regenerated, and it has nothing to do with the Liberal party.
Of course, we can look further. There are the remarkable co-operative endeavours associated with the Eldonians. I salute the men and women who have made the scheme possible. It was a pioneering example of a new approach to housing, born under a Conservative Administration.
I am the first to say that the opportunities are as yet only half percieved. The city council is today preparing its bids for City Challenge. It is looking for ways to build on the experiences that the Conservatives made possible in the 1980s and to regenerate, as it intends and hopes, substantial parts of the wider, older heritage parts of the city. Such ideas would have been inconceivable 10 years ago under the Liberals or Labour.
In essence, what has happened is that attitudes have changed because the Government were determined that there must be a new approach to urban renewal—a new context within which to manage a more successful capitalist economy.
I was fascinated, as the whole House will have been, to hear the hon. Member for Mossley Hill refer to the docks. Of course they are better. Why are they better? It is because the dock labour scheme has gone, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) pointed out. I do not remember the Liberals of Merseyside arguing that we should get rid of the dock labour scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "We voted for it."] Of course, the Liberal party voted for the Bill in question when we introduced it, but what did the Liberals do when they were in a position to influence such matters?
The further one looks, the greater the sense of excitement one discovers. It is true that British Aerospace has taken a £19 million stake in Liverpool airport and has plans for a £2 billion programme of expansion. What was British Aerospace when the Government were elected? It was a Government Department—nationalised and quite incapable of seizing opportunities to take a stake in airports anywhere, let alone on Merseyside. One step after another has led to the revival of an enterprise culture, which Liverpool, with every other great city in the country, is beginning to embrace.

Mr. Alton: I am sure that, on grounds of fairness alone, the Secretary of State will concede that projects such as the Eldonians project—and, indeed, the whole concept of housing co-operatives—were conceived when I was chairman of the housing committee in Liverpool. The idea that no part was played by Liberals such as Sir Trevor Jones in many of the projects that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned is preposterous. The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that, as leader of the city council, Sir Trevor co-operated fully with him in trying to make such projects happen. It is precisely because vie want to co-operate with the Government that I spoke in the terms that I did.

Mr. Heseltine: Sir Trevor, whom I know well, was known as "Jones the Vote" in the context of his management of Liverpool because he was perceived to be favouring Liberal parts of the city by moving public resources in their direction. Consequently, significant parts of the Labour party became increasingly indignant, reacting to what was regarded as the Liberal manipulation of the city's finances. Moreover, if all these ideas were brought into existence when the hon. Member for Mossley Hill was chairman of the housing committee, it is surprising that it was the middle of the 1980s before I was able to go and see the projects happening. Times had moved on by then. The fact is that, effectively, the ideas came to fruition under a Conservative Administration.

Sir Cyril Smith: I am bound to say to the Secretary of State that his speech does not do him justice. I am sorry to say that, but I had thought that the right hon. Gentleman would make a constructive contribution. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Conservative Government, and only the Conservative Government have done all these marvellous things for Liverpool. Can he tell me why the people of Liverpool do not believe him and why there are only two Conservative councillors in the whole of Liverpool?

Mr. Heseltine: The Conservative party holds seats all round the conurbation because people have witnessed the remarkable efforts that we have made for Liverpool. The fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development holds her constituency of Wallasey can by no means be dissociated from the fact that the people there can see just how much we have done to help that area of Liverpool.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Bristol, too, hundreds of acres have lain derelict and semi-derelict for 20-plus years and that, when a development corporation has come in to do something about that, the Labour and Liberal parties have fought the proposals tooth and nail?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The characteristic posture of Labour and Liberal authorities has been to resist until they see Conservative schemes work, yet Opposition Members then stand up in the House and try to suggest that they should have come faster. We had a classic example from the hon. Member for Mossley Hill today. There were no signs of significant revival in Liverpool when the Liberals ran the city.
Matters got a lot worse under the Labour party, to which I shall come in a few minutes—I have never suggested that the Liberals were as bad as the Labour party. The Liberals are just halfway down the track, engaging in "me too-ism" and populism carried to extremes. As long as there is trouble to be made, the Liberals will make it, but if they think that there is gain to be had by appearing to support someone, they will do that instead.

Mr. Barry Field: My right hon. Friend referred to Trevor Jones. Would he be surprised to know that, just as Sir Trevor Jones was fighting for his very political existence on Liverpool city council against the Militants, the Liberal leader of Medina borough council was actively helping Militant Tendency on the Isle of Wight, whose members picketed my constituency association and my house? Today, that gentleman—who in 1987 helped the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) with his campaign—is the assistant to the chief executive of Liverpool city council.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend asked me in the simplest language whether I would be surprised to know. Of course I would not, because that is exactly what one expects to find in the Labour party. If the Militants are an asset and a help—if there is not too much of a spotlight on their activities—there is no attempt to stop them. The only time when Militants are unwelcome in the Labour party is when there is a spotlight on their activities. Otherwise, they are gathered in, encouraged, nominated and pushed up the ladder of preferment and their endeavours are thoroughly welcomed. It is only when the going gets rough and the spotlight of public opinion is focused on them that the Labour party tries to bury them under the carpet or push them on to the sidelines. It will not fool anyone listening to the debate today, any more than it will fool the country at large.
The great argument behind which the hon. Member for Mossley Hill hid—I have not the slightest doubt that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman will also seek to draw it to the attention of the House—is couched in the magic language of cuts. All the way through the 1980s, we heard that language. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has not been mentioned."] Perhaps not in today's debate, but in their general language, the Labour and Liberal parties in the city of Liverpool have implicitly argued for more money and asked, "Why are you cutting our resources?"
It is interesting to examine that assertion. I do not know how anybody can tell me that there have been cuts, given that in 1979, when the Liberals were in charge of Liverpool the transport and construction department employed 2,262 people, whereas today it employs 2,421. That does not sound to me like much of a cut. I do not remember the hon. Member for Mossley Hill mentioning any attempt that the Liberals had made to reduce the number of people directly employed by the council.

Mr. Alton: As a result of the policies pursued by my colleagues during the years when they were in control, not a single person was made compulsorily redundant but the number of jobs was reduced by 5,000 by natural wastage.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman would need to substantiate his assertion that 5,000 fewer people were employed by the city of Liverpool as a result of decisions taken by the Liberal administration. I have the figures here, and they make interesting reading. For example, 1,401 people employed in recreation in 1979 became 2,044 people under the present administration. The figure for refuse collection was 640 in 1979 but is now up to 747. All the figures relate to a period during which the population of Liverpool fell by 14·6 per cent. The general reduction in overall manpower employed by the authority was only 5·6 per cent. The dramatic reductions and cutting about which we have heard so much have simply not taken place.
The important point that has been revealed by the confrontation taking place in Liverpool is that there is another Conservative lesson to be learned. We said that cuts in service delivery were not necessary and that, by efficiency, it was possible to achieve the standards of service that were appropriate, and at a better price. We have said that year after year. When the contract for refuse collection was put out to tender the other day the outside private sector contract was for £3·9 million. The internal price quoted was £7·9 million. If one extrapolated from those figures across the equivalent departments within the city authority, something of the order of £10 million would be saved by putting the tasks out to the private sector. If the Liberals or Labour had done that in 1979, they would by now have saved the hapless citizens of Liverpool £50 million.
Let me give an example of the approach that is adopted. In 1989, 30 per cent. of the ground maintenance work was put out to tender. A contractor put in a bid for £1·5 million; the in-house bid was £3 million. The city council, this time under Labour, wanted to award the contract to the in-house team. It took a Conservative Government to step in and say, "No; if we are to have value for money, the contract must go to the private sector." The process now involves competition.
And so it goes on. If only Labour and the Liberals used the techniques that they admire occasionally and in retrospect, they would be able to make significant economies. Improvements could be made throughout the country: obvious advantages would be derived if some £2·5 billion-worth of work were put out to compulsory tender, as national economies amounting to perhaps £150 million could be made annually.

Mr. Wareing: I have listened with interest to what the right Gentleman has said about past administrations. Is he not aware that for 110 years Liverpool was run by the Conservatives? Why did not the Conservative authority that was in charge between 1967 and 1972 do all those marvellous things?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be only too well aware that the city council's employment figures were significantly lower in those days than they were later. Remorseless increases after that time led to the scale of overmanning that we are now discussing.

Mr. Alton: I do not want the Secretary of State to mislead the House unwittingly. Is he aware that my

colleagues in Liverpool have consistently pursued a policy of allowing competitive tendering? A whole 10 years ago they sought to privatise the bin service; however, there was never a political majority. The electoral system that the right hon. Gentleman defends allowed a Militant administration to exercise power for a long time, although it had received a minority of the votes.

Mr. Heseltine: It is the old Liberal story: "We always tried, but we always failed"—except in the last few days. At last, the Labour authority has decided to try to achieve the necessary economies. We now see the Liberals and the broad left in the same lobby, voting down the Labour majority. There is a deficit of more than £1 million in the city's account. The Liberal party is facing both ways, always trying to win, regardless of the argument. The attitude taken by Liberal Members today is indefensible.

Mr. Chris Butler: Does my right hon. Friend recall the occasion when, on 6 July 1987, the Liberals opposed compulsory competitive tendering during our debate on the Local Government Bill? Have they forgotten that?

Mr. Heseltine: I must be frank: I had forgotten it myself and I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me. I am not at all surprised; that is exactly what I would expect the Liberals to do. We have heard today how they tried to get the bin men to behave differently and to introduce compulsory competitive tendering. They would have loved to have kept the bills down, they say. But, when the Tories introduce legislation, they vote against it. That is the Liberal party for you.
I do not think that we need detain the House much longer by discussing the preposterous hypocrisy of the Liberal motion. Let me now say a word about the Labour party.
There is no doubt that—within the disciplines that we have long urged and the constraints that financial rectitude has forced us to impose—some interesting schemes are emerging in Liverpool city council, based on Tory philosophy and experience. The Government will consider those schemes seriously, because they are a response to our initiatives. They are designed to help the citizens of Liverpool and to restore its morale. We are confident that they are capable of succeeding, because we proved throughout the 1980s—with earlier experiments—that that was possible.
The Labour party's problem is historic: it is actually two separate parties, and always has been. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Margaret and Ted?"] Hon. Gentlemen may be talking about two different views on a specific issue. I am talking about a party that is split from top to bottom. On one side is what, on its better days, is called the moderate wing; on the other is the extremist wing. That problem is illustrated most clearly in Liverpool, where councillors, Members of Parliament and members of the trade union movement—in fact, the whole edifice of the left—are encapsulated in the current divisive, bitter row.

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: No, I will not give way.
All that was to the immense detriment of the citizens of Liverpool. Those people are not concerned with services,


or with the quality of life that Liverpool's citizens are entitled to expect; the row is about the power base of those who have secured within the structure of the Labour party —and no protests were made as they climbed the ladder of opportunity—the ability to hold a society to ransom.
Every time that Labour secures power, that divide forces it to pay a price to its extreme wing. Everyone knows that, if the Labour party ever crossed the Floor of the House to sit on the Government Benches, there would be enough members of that extreme wing to extract the price that is now being extracted from the hapless citizens of Liverpool. It is because Liverpool has demonstrated that Labour is not fit to govern there, any more than it is fit to govern Lambeth or a dozen other authorities, that I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.

Mr. David Blunkett: The Secretary of State, who proclaims his care and love for Liverpool, has made an amusing and combative speech, but has offered nothing to help the people of Liverpool in the years ahead. On what amounts to a tragic afternoon for Liverpool, the right hon. Gentleman has joined the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) in a knocking job—not lifting the morale of Liverpool or praising those who are tackling the real issues and problems, but engaging in a sordid and petty debate in which scoring points is much more important than putting the people of Liverpool first. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Sheffield?"] This is an own goal for the Liberals. It is a tragic afternoon for the people of Sheffield—[Laughter.] I mean the people of Liverpool. I was distracted by Conservative Members shouting, "What about Sheffield?".
This is the difference between those baying Conservative Members and me: I have had to run a city and they have not. In Liverpool, we are supporting people who are trying to do their jobs. We are not criticising, carping and sniping from the sidelines; nor have we done what the hon. Member for Mossley Hill did—we have not raised the issue during The Prime Minister's Questions, enabling the Prime Minister to criticise the city and its leadership. We are trying to do something about the problems. The motion calls for the "broadly based government" that the Liberal party believes in. Liverpool had that between 1973 and 1983.

Mr. Hayward: The hon. Gentleman has just quoted from the Liberal motion. If he is so certain that Labour has the solution to Liverpool's problems—and, after all, it is in control of the city—why did not the Labour party table a motion or an amendment?

Mr. Blunkett: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is traditional for the official Opposition not to table amendments in circumstances of this kind. He will see that if he looks at the record. The motion refers to the restoration of basic services. The only people who tried were members of the official Labour group leadership.
I will enlighten the Secretary of State about the positive contribution made by his colleagues, by recalling the disgraceful statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for unemployment, who had the gall to call for legal action by Liverpool city council, knowing that the refuse collection workers were to meet this morning to consider

returning to work. That act was one of inept irresponsibility, and was typical of the way that the Government have performed in recent weeks. Not a word of support, help or encouragement, or any suggestion of financial aid—only sniping and criticism.

Mr. Keith Mans: If the present so-called moderate Labour leadership of Liverpool city council is so responsible, why did it take three weeks to do something about the rubbish? Why did it do nothing about the piles of refuse that piled up in the streets in the first place?

Mr. Blunkett: If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about what is happening in Liverpool, he would know that invitations to tender for the refuse collection service went out, and tenders were received, but that last Wednesday was the earliest opportuntiy that the council had to consider them.

Mr. Mans: That is not true.

Mr. Blunkett: It is true. I hope that any right hon. or hon. Member who contributes to the debate, either from a sedentary position or while standing in their place, will address themselves accurately and with some understanding to the issues confronting Liverpool.
The crisis faced by Liverpool is unprecedented in any major British or European urban area. Over the past 50 years, Liverpool has lost over half its population—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It appears that Conservative Members are not concerned about the quality of this debate or about any proper analysis, but only want to make carping, baying criticisms. That is not in the interests of the people of Liverpool, about whom the House should be concerned. Liverpool's population has dropped by over half in the past 50 years, due to a major decline in the commercial heart of the city and its trading position. We all know that.
In view of the silly remarks that have been made, I am minded to comment that the one thing that Liverpool and the Tory party have in common is that they both face away from Europe. That has been Liverpool's problem. In facing away from Europe, Liverpool suffered more substantial damage than any other British city. The decline of the port, the 50,000 jobs lost over the last 10 years, and the fall of 450,000 in Liverpool's population over the past 50 years all contributed significantly to the city council's problems during the last two or three decades.
The city bosses, for whom the Labour party does take responsibility, made their own contribution to that decline, because—as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing)— throughout the 1950s and 1960s, they failed to notice what was happening and to take appropriate action.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not interesting that the Secretary of State's empty rhetoric did not address the fact that there is not one Tory Liverpool Member of Parliament, and there has not been for some years? The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that the Tory candidate in the Walton by-election will get only a derisory vote. If the Labour party in Liverpool is so wicked, why do the Tories do so badly there?

Sir Cyril Smith: They have only two councillors out of 91.

Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) chips in to point out that the Tories have only two councillors out of 91 in Liverpool, and my hon. Friend the


Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) reminds us that they have no Members of Parliament there. The public vote for those whom they believe can do the job—and the people of Liverpool have certainly reached the conclusion that the Conservative party cannot do the job.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I will in a moment, but I want to make progress. I was about to get round to the Liberal party, and I would hate the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) to intrude.
Until this afternoon, I had judged that the one thing that Militant and the Liberal party did not have in common was their organisation and their behaviour. However, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill told the House this afternoon that he was threatened with expulsion from the Liberal party—and, by implication, that he was intimidated—for taking a particular stand on an issue that he thought was important to the integrity of his area. I commend him for that. However, Militant and the Liberal party have more than that in common.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: They supported similar policies.

Mr. Blunkett: They did. They both practised populism, without winning, or having access to, the means to deliver the goods. They both failed to tackle the long-term problems of the restructuring of the city council, reorganisation of education, and the often inept management and industrial relations. They even failed to tackle refuse collection.

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, for the last eight years, Labour has enjoyed a majority on Liverpool city council, and that at no time during the past 20 years have the Liberals enjoyed a majority? At every turn, we have relied on co-operation—and the one thing that has never been on offer from the Labour group, which it rejected as recently as last year, is political partnership in the city. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he now commits the Labour party in Liverpool to working with the Liberal Democrats?

Mr. Blunkett: It is very difficult to work with the Liberal Democrats on a positive basis, as we saw last Wednesday. The Secretary of State was right when he said that, on three separate occasions, in respect of major budgetary items, the Liberals decided not to go along with the reality of decisions for which they voted last March. It was not the first time, because, as I shall spell out in a moment, the Liberals' record when they had access to power does not bear close examination.
Someone who has a greater knowledge of Liverpool than I do, Michael Parkinson, director of the centre for urban studies at Liverpool university, contributed substantially—as the Secretary of State knows—to chapter 4 of the Widdicombe report. Anyone interested in the history of Liverpool should read his evidence to the committee, because it is very enlightening. I spent a wonderful weekend re-reading it.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Blunkett: No, not at the moment.
Mr. Parkinson stated:
The Liberals were never able to reorganise the inefficiency and poor management of the direct labour organisation … Similarly, the Liberals were unable to reorganise the expensive and inefficient refuse collection service.
I admit that the Liberals tried privatisation at one point, but they failed to ensure—as other councils throughout the country, including my own, did ensure—that the quality and delivery of services was at the top of their agenda, and that, instead of a service being exploited by the private sector, it could be exploited for the benefit of the people for whom it was designed. That is the record of Labour in power.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman explained why his party cannot work with the Liberals. Is that why, previously, he has consistently been against expelling Militant members from the Labour party—because he finds them easier and more convenient to work with?

Mr. Blunkett: Apart from the fact that the question is irrelevant, the hon. Gentleman is utterly wrong. I cannot be pilloried as the class traitor of the month in Labour Briefing, and then told that I have not expelled any Militants. I made a judgment according to the constitution of the Labour party and the evidence presented. In the case of Derek Hatton and Mr. Lowes, my view—it was not shared by everybody—was that they were members of Militant, so I voted to expel them from my party five and a half years ago. Next time that the hon. Gentleman feels like opening his mouth, I suggest that first he connects it to his brain.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman clearly said that I was making up my remarks about him being—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. That is a point of frustration, not a point of order.

Mr. Blunkett: I have been diverted from the central feature of the afternoon, which is the comparison between the Liberal Democrats and Militant. Both engage in deficit budgeting. In 1983, it was the Liberals, in their last effort at budgeting before there was an overall Labour majority in Liverpool, who left a £6 million deficit with unspecified cuts—exactly the position that they refused to face last Wednesday when dealing with this year's budget for Liverpool.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Lady, like the widow's mite, is so persistent that I think I shall let her have her say.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that Liverpool would have far fewer problems if it did not just bother about its rubbish—a bad enough problem—but collected its rent arrears, which amount to 26 per cent.? Is it not obvious to the ordinary unbiased voter that Labour in Liverpool is bribing people to vote for it by putting them in council houses and then saying that it will not collect the rents?

Mr. Blunkett: I am endeavouring to deal with the motion before us and the person who moved it—the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, a former chairman of housing in Liverpool. Between 1979 and 1983, the rent for a two-bedroomed high-rise flat rose by 130 per cent.—yet


the Liberals' only pledge was to dismantle council homes. They did not want to house people or to repair homes, as the hon. Gentleman earlier tried to pretend. The Liberals cut millions of pounds from the repair budget. They wanted to dismantle municipal housing and redistribute the social structure of Liverpool to gain votes for their party.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman has made an extraordinary comment. Was it not the Labour party in Liverpool which, in 1972, built a council estate called Neverley and which, 12 years later—having created those terrible municipal bantustans, ripped the heart out of the city of Liverpool and shanghaied people to places where they did not want to go—was the party responsible for the demolition of that estate, with 48 years of debt charges still to be paid? Will not the the people of Liverpool be paying those charges almost into perpetuity because of the Labour party's mistake?

Mr. Blunkett: I would be a great deal more sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's view if, when he was chairman of housing, he had genuinely tackled the disrepair, the decay and the legacy of earlier years—but he did not.
Both Militant and the Liberal Democrats have one thing in common—their biggest and most important issue is not delivering services, but attacking the Labour party and its stand for honesty, decency, efficiency and quality of service for the people of Liverpool. That is what the Labour party is endeavouring to achieve.

Mr. Sayeed: It has clearly been shown that, when direct labour organisations are abolished and private contractors brought in to do house and other repairs, those repairs are done more efficiently and cheaply. Why is the Labour party against compulsory competitive tendering?

Mr. Blunkett: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion. Only 5 per cent. of public contracts won under competitive tendering have been challenged or have run into difficulties, whereas one in four private sector contracts have had major difficulties—including those in well-known left-wing boroughs such as Bromley and counties such as Norfolk, which have had to sack the private contractors cleaning schools because of their sheer incompetence.
I want to put on record the fact that Onyx and private sector refuse collection are on trial in Liverpool. Onyx had better deliver the goods for the people of Liverpool, because we shall judge it just as the Secretary of State has tried to judge municipal services—by the incompetence of the organisation undertaking the refuse collection. A comparison can be made, and we will be able to see what the private sector can or cannot achieve. Anybody can provide a cheaper service, but it is a different matter when it comes to delivering quality of service for the money paid. That is why we want not to knock Liverpool today, but to examine why it has found itself in this position.

Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have seen the article in The Independent on 28 July last year, in which Councillor Keva Coombes, then leader of Liverpool council, said:
No one has ever been sacked for not doing their job properly, but nor do they get promoted for doing it well. If you come in as an 18-year-old housing clerk in a housing department, you will retire as one.

That has been the mentality in Liverpool. No one was promoted for doing a good job and, as a consequence, there was no incentive, so the service was rotten. That is what is wrong with Labour in Liverpool.

Mr. Blunkett: I regret that Keva Coombes felt unable last Wednesday to support his official Labour colleagues in facing those difficulties. Jobs for life have applied under Conservative, Labour and Liberal authorities, and it is wrong that that was assumed to be right for the local people.
I want to take the House back to the 1970s, and to the last time that the then Labour Government had the opportunity directly to help Liverpool city council. In 1975, Liverpool's rate support grant was increased by a staggering £21 million, the biggest—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members think for a moment about the actual spending power of that money at that time, they will appreciate my argument. It was the largest ever increase —admittedly, consequent to the Houghton commit tee report—and part of a £46 million increase in rate support grant for Liverpool under the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979.
That £21 million was squandered by the Liberal leadership. Instead of investing it in services, improved competence and efficiency, in helping to restructure a city under pressure, and in helping with its economy, education and training, the Liberals that year cut the rate by 1p in the pound. Subsequently, they voted against Labour budgets by cutting the proposed rate increase by a half in 1977–78 and by a third in 1978–79.
Labour made only one budget between 1973 and 1983, and that was in 1980. It was a responsible budget but, ironically, an amendment was tabled to it and it was voted against by a councillor who was later to become infamous —a Mr. Derek Hatton. He and eight of his colleagues tabled an amendment for a deficit budget, a strategy that they pursued right up until 1985, when the Labour party took action against a policy to which it had never adhered. If the Labour party made a mistake, it was not to take action against him and his eight colleagues at the time for breaching Labour party policy.
The significance of the period 1973 to 1979 under the Liberals is that the incoming Conservative Government—the Secretary of State knows all about this—used the 1978–79 budget year as the baseline for both capital and revenue expenditure in terms of how much the city of Liverpool and other councils were to get. The Liberals had reduced expenditure by more than any other authority in Britain. They concentrated on reducing the rates arid pushing up charges, but that was without the increases in efficiency which, we are told, are consequential when such measures are taken.
The Liberals tell us with pride that 5,000 council jobs were cut during the 10 years that they were in power. Apart from the fact that Liverpool city council suffered from the baseline being so low and the enormous rates increase in 1980, that placed Militant Tendency in an ideal position to take advantage of the circumstances—which it duly did.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman is again in danger of misleading the House, unless he admits that Liverpool has been controlled by the Labour party during the last eight years. It has had an absolute majority on the city council. If rents had been increased, instead of being kept down during the whole of that period, with ultimately disastrous


consequences, and if natural wastage—the policy that he criticised a few moments ago—had been pursued throughout those years, does he not agree that the council would not have had to make a single person compulsorily redundant?

Mr. Blunkett: It is not a question of losing jobs but of using people effectively. To redeploy, retrain and redirect people, using their skills, is something that every hon. Member should be proud to do, instead of taking pride in cutting jobs. When facing necessity, one has no choice. To face reality—to have the courage to do things, if need be, that one does not wish to do—is exactly what the Labour party in Liverpool is doing. The hon. Gentleman attempts to divert my attention from what the Liberals did, and the fact that, in the 1980s, the city council faced that appalling situation.
The Labour party's first budget was in 1984. After years of brinkmanship, when rates had not been set until the very edge of the financial year, the rates were not made in 1984 until well into the new financial year. No agreement on a budget could be reached by 25 April. On 17 May, well into the financial year, the Secretary of State agreed to meet the leaders of Liverpool city council. This is crucial as to who is right and who is wrong about the Liverpool legacy.
Between 1973 and 1984, the Labour party prepared only one budget—in 1980—which was attacked by Militant Tendency. In 1984, the budget was eventually made in June, after agreement had been reached with the then Secretary of State for the Environment, after money had been allocated by the Department of the Environment for the housing and urban programme, after an investigation had taken place by civil servants into the city council's budget, and after the Department of the Environment had suggested a 37 to 71 per cent. rates increase. It was not a Militant budget. It was not even a Labour budget. It was an agreed Department of the Environment budget that saved the city from collapse in 1984.
In 1985, much against its will because it was still adhering to a deficit budget, the city council was involved in that delayed rate-making policy. Not surprisingly, people felt that, as the Government had given way the previous year all the way through till June, there was just a chance that the Secretary of State would give way again, provide resources and back off rate capping in 1985. We were wrong. The Secretary of State did not give way again. The miners' dispute collapsed. Liverpool city council was left under Militant's directon throughout the autumn of 1985. At that point, the Labour party nationally took a hand and intervened.—[Interruption.] A Conservative Member shouts, "Which you opposed." I shall return to that point in a minute. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Given that Eric Heffer was, if nothing else, a man of socialist principle, will the hon. Gentleman explain why Eric Heller walked out of the Labour party conference when the leader of the Labour party was speaking? Was it because he believed that the Labour party in Liverpool—not Militant—was being badly treated by the present

leadership? Is that why that man of principle walked out when his leader was speaking at the Labour party conference?

Mr. Blunkett: To refer to the actions of the former Member of Parliament for Liverpool, Walton is not in good taste; nor does it help this debate. We know why the former Member of Parliament for Walton did what he did —because he felt so upset about what was happening to his city.
I want to end by taking head on the remark of the Conservative Member who said that the Labour party nationally intervened against my will in 1985. As was the case with the Secretary of State, I was a visitor to Liverpool. I knew what the situation was, and I examined its budget. The decision was taken to instruct the Labour party in Liverpool to balance the books. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and the then leader of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, Sir John Layden, wrote to all members and enclosed a report that I had written, extracted from the Stonefrost committee's report.
I looked it up this weekend. That is why I am so interested in the silly and inept intervention by that Conservative Member. I said:
A failure now to meet the responsibilities of the council to the people of Liverpool would not only be insane"—
I appreciate that these are strong words—
but a deliberate sabotage of the whole Labour movement.
I do not know where that Conservative Member got the idea that I had not supported that effort, but he may well have to eat his words.
Last Thursday, an appeal was made by the three Church leaders in Liverpool—Archbishop Worlock, Bishop Sheppard and the Free Church Moderator, Dr. John Newton. They asked everyone to refrain from muck raking and pouring scorn on the people of Liverpool. They were asked on the Radio 4 "PM" programme whether they believed that they were saying "Support Labour". Archbishop Worlock said, "In this instance, it is one and the same thing." They were asked whether they were attacking the Prime Minister. Archbishop Worlock said, "Not just John Major, but Paddy Ashdown, the Liberal leader, who has been to Liverpool in the last few days and has done the same thing." They are sick and tired of people attacking their city. They want wholehearted support for those who are trying to sort out the city's problems. They want to promote the best interests of the people whom they serve.
Everyone should want to do that—to achieve a better future for the city, to pull together, to have a quality commission that can work directly with the management and councillors of Liverpool so that everything can be put on an even keel, to see that more resources are placed at the disposal of the city to help with its restructuring and to support it in ensuring that its services are delivered effectively. There is only one party that, during the last few months, has been doing that job—the official Labour party. The victory that we shall achieve on 4 July in Walton will provide an important milestone on the way to Liverpool's recovery.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we make further progress, I must tell the House that there is much interest in the debate and that, unless hon. Members make brief speeches, 95 per cent. of them will be disappointed.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: We have had a stimulating debate. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was in devastating form. It was amusing to see how the Labour Benches rocked with laughter when he turned his fire on the Liberal Democrats, yet when the boot was on the other foot and he was equally devastating about the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats found that funny. His extremely effective speech was a breath of spring, and he scored a bull's eye.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Liverpool was a great city. Like many of our sea ports, it had enormous atmosphere. Its buildings looked marvellous and were well maintained. Sadly, today, that once great city looks sad, dirty and neglected.
Many of Liverpool's problems were caused by the decline in industries such as cotton and in transatlantic shipping traffic. However, other parts of the country suffered from the same problems but managed to attract new industries. For example, Glasgow is a west coast port which faces away from the Common Market, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) so disingenuously said of Liverpool. It has experienced the same problems, but it is now one of the jewels in the United Kingdom, showing what can be done if proper attitudes prevail.
Liverpool's industrial relations record is not good. Many employers must say, "I would like to move to Merseyside or Liverpool, but I will be at the behest of the unions, I will not be able to do the things that I want to do and I will not be able to stimulate new jobs and prosperity."
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Brightside suggested, Liverpool's failure is due entirely to the Labour council —

Mr. Eddie Loyden: rose—

Mr. Montgomery: I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman was not present at the beginning of the debate.
It is essential that local government tries to ensure value for money, because the more effective a local council is the better value local residents receive for the money that they contribute. Waste and inefficiency, wherever they occur, are the enemies of good housekeeping. The seal of approval for good housekeeping could not be bestowed on Liverpool city council today. Instead, it has had the misfortune of being called the worst city council in British history. What a commendation that is.
For most of the past 20 years, Liverpool has been controlled by the Labour party. The Liberal Democrats have never had overall control and the Labour party has been in control. The period has been highlighted by mismanagement, chaos and, as one commentator said in a newspaper last week, corruption. Keva Coombes was leader of the council before being ousted last year by Harry Rimmer. My wife is active in housing circles in the north-west. She is chairman of a housing association, is on the housing corporation and has done much work and met

many people in Liverpool. She has a high regard for Mr. Rimmer. She said, "He is a decent man, one of the old Labour school."
Mr. Rimmer has had a difficult time. I saw him on television recently in tears because he had been harassed and threatened by Militants. I wonder what he was doing while Militant flourished in Liverpool.

Mr. Wareing: I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Mr. Rimmer was not a Labour councillor until 1987; before then, he was deputy leader of Merseyside county council—and an excellent one, too.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Other people now in the Labour moderate section sat back and allowed the Militants to take over.
Since his departure, Keva Coombes has made a series of devastating attacks on his comrades who now dominate Liverpool city council. In Local Government Chronicle on 27 July 1990, he said:
We are the worst landlord in Liverpool, probably in the country. All the new building has taken place and been run by a central unit and all despite the housing department. It takes genius—voids gone up, rent arrears soared, [and] the breaking of the law on racial equality.
In The Independent on 20 July—my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) quoted from this article—Mr. Coombes said:
The Council's problems are not down to resources. it costs four times more to pick up a piece of litter in Liverpool than it does in other areas. What's more, the people doing these jobs aren't well paid. There's a cycle of low pay, lousy morale and poor productivity.
On "Newsnight" on 10 August 1990, he said:
Tenants get an appalling service, and they know that. I think probably the fundamental cause is, frankly, we've put the interests of the providers of the service, the workforce, above the interests of the tenants.
Mr. Coombes has also admitted that Liverpool has the highest proportion of empty council properties. I have a copy of the audited accounts for 1989–90, which show that there are almost 6,000 vacant council properties—9 per cent. of the total housing stock. What an indictment that is, and what a prospect for the people on the housing waiting list, most of whom are living in appalling conditions and are desperately anxious to get a home. Those 6,000 properties could be used to provide homes for those needy people. The accounts mention three key problems:
the repair work needed prior to reletting; Council policies restricting the number of eligible tenants for certain types of property
and the problems of letting certain "difficult to let" properties.
Revenue is lost by those houses being empty. If tenants were paying rent, that would be extra money into the central fund. I do not suppose that that causes the people who run Liverpool to lose too much sleep, because, as of 9 September 1990, current rent arrears were £16·786 million.

Mr. Dicks: This is not a Militant council, is it?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: No.
The hard-working, honest-to-God tenant will suffer, because the accounts say:
This level of arrears is amongst the worst of all local authorities in England and Wales. What is more any further worsening in the level of rent arrears would lead directly to the need for a further rent increase to balance the Housing Revenue Account. Those tenants who are paying would be made to subsidise those who are not.


Therefore, the hard-working, honest-to-God Liverpool tenant who is paying his dues and doing what is necessary will be penalised in order to bail out those who refuse to pay. In the spring recess, my wife and I went on a trip to Hong Kong—we paid our own way, through a package deal which appeared in the newspapers—whose Government are the largest landlord in the world. Their rent arrears account for 1 per cent. of the total rent due, which is a tremendous achievement. In Liverpool, the figure is 26 per cent. Perhaps Liverpool council should pay to send somebody to Hong Kong to discover the secret of its successful record. That would be money well spent.
Wherever one looks in Liverpool, the message is the same. Liverpool council has the worst performance of any metropolitan council in collecting the community charge. Although it is in the top 10 for education expenditure per pupil, it is in the bottom 10 for GCSE results. The crunch has come with the dustmen's strike—rubbish has piled up in the streets, reminiscent of Britain in 1979 during the last days of the Labour Government's winter of discontent. It is disgraceful that the system which has operated in Liverpool has meant that job nominations were given to unions completely dominated by Militant. People were allocated jobs by a trade union—what a way to run a city.
For the past four years, the so-called "moderate" Labour party has been running Liverpool. It left that corrupt system in place and did nothing about it. Is it any wonder that for the past 20 years Liverpool has been losing people at the rate of 10,000 per year? The hon. Member for Brightside referred to the drop in population, and I asked why it had occurred. The hon. Gentleman was scornful, but I believe that one reason for the drop is that people could not afford to stay in Liverpool. The cost of socialism was too much for many of them to endure, and the policies operated by the city administration were distasteful to them.
Liverpool is a socialist showpiece—rubbish piled up on the streets and boarded-up windows. The honest, decent Liverpudlian must despair at the thought that a once-proud city has been reduced to this. It is a vivid illustration of socialism in action.

Mr. Terry Fields: I sat here throughout the introductory contributions. Despite provocation, I did not seek to intervene with questions to those who are not the protectors, but the assailants of Liverpool—the Captain Mainwarings, the ratbag Dad's Army on the Opposition Benches and the Conservative Members, whom we know and love. [Interruption.] I shall not give way. Others may make their speeches as time goes by.
In the motion and the amendment we are asked to behave with reasonableness and light and to come together, as those who tabled them believe, in the interests of the people of Liverpool. As always, we can expect a sideshow from the Liberals, deflecting attention from the enormous embarrassment of the Government's economic and social policies—all their policies, laid bare before the electorate. Of course, the clowns on the Liberal Benches come along and put up a smokescreen, attacking Liverpool and its city council, which are well used to that.
We take on all corners, and I do not say that in a conceited way. Conservative Members say, "I taught in Liverpool," or "I went through Liverpool on a bus," but we have lived there all our lives and have seen the conditions of our constituents. We do not need lessons from Tories representing the ruling class and the pink shadows and the blue shadows on the Liberal Benches—the Benches of a party which is also the party of capital—to tell us what is in our best interests.
Since 1983, in local and general elections, the people of Liverpool have consistently shown that the Tories have no place in Liverpool politics—that they are a back number and a dead letter. The Liberals cry out for proportional representation as a solution to the problems of Liverpool. They have no problems, as we have shown and seen in the past.
We are asked to attack the trade unions in Liverpool. We are being asked on all sides to sack workers in a city which, on everyone's evaluation, has been impoverished over decades. That has not happened since 1983—it is nothing to do with Hatton, Tony Byrne or any of our comrades. The impoverishment goes back decades and is due to neglect and lack of investment by people represented on the Conservative Benches. That is the reality of Liverpool.

Mr. David Sumberg: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. So that we may judge the quality of the debate, should not the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) make it absolutely clear which party he will support in the by-election?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. There has been no breach of Standing Orders.

Mr. Fields: The so-called Liberals, so-called Democrats have made much of Labour being in control in Liverpool. Between 1974 and 1983, those people, in tandem with the Tories, were running the city, even though they did not have overall numerical control. There is no mistake about that. Today, the Liberals are crying out about the state of the streets and about the cleansing service. I shall deal in detail later with why the cleansing service is in such a state—[Interruption.]—because of the bizarre policies that they pursue.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fields: The shuddering protestations of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) about the cleansing service—

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fields: I said that I would not give way. I shall carry on with my speech.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House has heard the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) say that he will not give way. Perhaps we can now proceed with the debate.

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member's point of order is not one of frustration and


annoyance. If it is something with which the Chair can deal, I shall listen to it; if not, the hon. Member must keep his seat.

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot hear because of the noise. The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to "they". I need to know whether he is referring to the two Labour parties or to the Liberal party.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Broadgreen will make that clear.

Mr. Fields: The man from the Liberal Democrats talks about the rubbish.

Mr. Loyden: I realise your difficulties, Madam Deputy Speaker, in dealing with the unruly mob on the Conservative Benches. The debate is supposed to be about the situation in Liverpool. The people of Liverpool are watching what is going on here, and it will confirm our views about Conservative Members. They are treating this debate with discourtesy and a lack of interest. They are making a fun day out of this important issue. I realise your difficulties, Madam Deputy Speaker, but will you please say—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall ensure that whatever hon. Member is speaking, from whichever quarter, is heard. Mr. Terry Fields.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is less than three quarters of an hour to go before the wind-up speeches. I hope that the hon. Member will not waste the time of the House.

Mr. MacKay: I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope so.

Mr. MacKay: Is it not the greatest discourtesy to the House that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) could not be bothered to turn up for the first part of the debate?

Mr. Loyden: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we should cool matters down and get on with the debate. Let us deal with policies rather than personalities.

Mr. Loyden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was delayed in Liverpool because I was attending meetings there, which have proved to me that they are much more important than the debate here today in terms of searching for a solution to Liverpool's problems.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we may now make some progress.

Mr. Fields: The collusion about which I spoke is a two-way process—the Tories are deflecting attention from the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. They are screaming and shouting about the rubbish in the streets. Referring to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, on 28 November 1987
The Observer reported:

He threw himself into community action. David and his pals had this appalling old mattress which they'd dump in a jigger [a back alley], a fellow student, Mike Storey, recalls.
Mike Storey is also a Liberal on Liverpool city council. Quoting him, the article continued:
'The residents would complain, and David would say, "We'll get on to the council for you." The council would remove the mattress, and the Liberals would get the credit. Then David would reclaim the mattress and dump it somewhere else.'
Those are the people who have the cheek and gall to raise this matter. They are the people who have been spoiling the city of Liverpool.

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fields: The Liberals took effective control—

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Broadgreen has made it clear to the Chair that he would not give way.

Mr. Alton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. So that the debate will not proceed further without this being pointed out, may I say that, if comments are made about an hon. Member that are certainly not true, it is normal for him to be given a chance at least to point that out?

Madam Deputy Speaker: All hon. Members understand that, but it is up to the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide whether to give way. I must make it clear that that has nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Fields: I do not believe in being—[HON. MEMBERS: "Democratic."]—disrespectful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This is an important debate about conditions in a city about which half the people here know nothing, although they created those conditions and the chaos. People in my city are trying to resolve the problems, but all that we get is a pantomime from Conservative Members who have no cognisance of the conditions of our people.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) spoke about the wonderful docks, but again that probably involved exploiting the working class in cities and the dockers. They do not know what they are talking about. My father was a docker; he lived and died on the docks. He worked like a horse and was treated like an animal in the pens by them and their class, so they should not tell us about the docks. They have starved the city of finance and they have created poverty, bad housing conditions and unemployment. Now, almost like voyeurs, they are coming back to the scene of the crime. At the weekend they castigated innocent Liverpool people who are leaving home to look for work in places such as Bournemouth because there is nothing for them in Liverpool.
The Conservatives boast about investment in Liverpool, but they have crippled the city. That is choice coming from a Government who, only today, are condemned in the financial pages for their running or the economy and the country. The trade gap has widened and two thirds of the Confederation of British Industry is pessimistic about the future because of the Government's economic policies. We can hear them mumbling because it


is getting through to them. They understand that I know what they are about and which class interests they represent.
I represent my class proudly, standing up to defend workers and the city of Liverpool. We have defended it against all corners. We fear none of you—you have done all you can—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They have done all they can. I am sorry about the parliamentary courtesy, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish to be disrespectful to you, but when I see my class enemy face to face, I sometimes lose my cool. I have no intention of insulting you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Investment is at an all-time low. Conservatives tell us that we should be pricing ourselves into jobs, but the very people who are dictating to us what we should be doing are getting 50 per cent., 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. increases in their wages and yet they tell us that we are pricing ourselves out of jobs. Our Front Bench had better be listening—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—because one of these days I shall perhaps give a key to the solution of the problems of the inflated people who are sponging off and exploiting the working class and creating the conditions experienced by my constituents.
We live in a society in which, even today, 1 per cent. of the population owns 18 per cent. of the wealth, 10 per cent. of the population, represented by those people on the Conservative Benches, own 50 per cent. of the wealth, and 50 per cent. of the population, represented by members of the Opposition, own only 10 per cent. of the wealth. We shall not solve the problems of Liverpool in this bear garden or through the Liberals and Tories, but through a Labour Government implementing socialist policies with the same enthusiasm as the Prime Minister and his predecessor have represented their class, the money fellows in the City, the Saunderses and all those who are screwing my class. We shall never forgive you for it. [Interruption.] Not your class, Madam Deputy Speaker—you are on our side, I believe.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not involve the Chair in this debate.

Mr. Fields: I do not seek to embarrass you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The decline in the economy has had adverse effects on the city of Liverpool. That has been mentioned time and again. Even my good comrade, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said in Labour Briefing in 1984:
The difficulty with the Liverpool situation is that it is unique. Not simply in its financial position, taking over a Liberal budget with a Labour programme, having no reserves or back up funds to survive the coming year, but because Liverpool is a living tribute to private enterprise and Tory policy in the destruction of the economy and industry.
He went on to say that we should be looking for ways to support the Liverpool councillors in their struggle against the Government as part of an on-going programme by other Labour-controlled authorities to assist and to stand with Liverpool against the Tories.
I am glad to see that Tory Members are perhaps reading "Liverpool—A City that Dared to Fight", a wonderful example of what a city could do with £20 million from Patrick Jenkin, the then Secretary of State for

the Environment, to prolong our house-building programme when the Government were attacking every Labour-controlled authority and stopping house-building programmes, just as the Liberal Democrats did in Liverpool during their reign.
The motion and the amendment attack the trade unions for holding the city to ransom. We live in a city where the council is the largest employer merely because there is no major industry. The docks may be tarted up, but one will not see many redundant dockers' launches lying there. It is the people who have benefited from the Government's economic policies—

Mr. Robert Hayward: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have a point of order which I hope is genuine.

Mr. Hayward: Will you confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Labour Whips are so determined to silence the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields)—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. What the Whips do is nothing to do with the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is wasting the House's time.

Mr. Fields: We are told that Liverpool is a debt-ridden city because of the policies of Militant and the extremists. That is not true. I take as my source the municipal year book, which compares 1980 and 1990. In fact, Liverpool's debt is less than Manchester's; it is almost equal to that of Leeds and is exceeded by Coventry's. Liverpool's debt is no more or less than that of the majority of local authorities. In an article in the press last week, it was explained clearly that the city treasury is not in hock to the banks—as some people would have us believe—any more than most other local authorities.
If we are looking for criticism, we do not need the Tories to tell us how to run a sound economy in our city because they bankrupted the country and continue to do so with their economic policies. As comrades who have served on Sefton and other local authorities will confirm, debt is part and parcel of local authorities.
Redundancies are a crisis for Liverpool. I do not believe that it is right—I say this publicly, as I have already said in Liverpool—that a Labour authority should make people redundant when there are jobs to be done for the council. The reality is that, in Liverpool, there are unfilled vacancies on the work list. Other vacancies are coming up because of natural wastage, and 500 jobs will be found because Liverpool has a licence for cable television and could employ those workers if it wanted to. Unfortunately, we are not getting those jobs—there is support for a programme of redundancies over and above those caused by privatisation of the cleansing services to which, I believe, the Labour party is wholly opposed.
As I said initially, we are being attacked from all sides, but we shall certainly do our best to defend ourselves. The motion will do nothing to resolve Liverpool's problems. We need a Labour Government elected at the next general election—the sooner the better—as a starting point to regenerate inner-city areas. We must give notice to the incoming Labour Government not to follow the path of the Wilson or Callaghan Administrations, which had to face, on the one hand, the demand of big business and the


International Monetary Fund and, on the other, the hopes and aspirations of working people which had built up after 13 nightmarish years of Toryism.
If we are to make any deals, they will not be with those in the City. Let us have our discussions with the working class, the disfranchised, the homeless, the poor, with those who are crippled by the mortgage interest rate and with those small business people who cannot afford to run their factories or to maintain innovative measures. Those people are our wonderful constituency, but we will not control what we do not own. Conservative Members understand that point.
Our programme for the future is the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy, with workers controlling the management and planning for need, not greed. That is the only solution to Liverpool's problems. It is the only solution to the problems of the working class. The clowns on the Conservative Benches have nothing to offer us that would help to solve our problems.

6 pm

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: If anybody had been under the misapprehension that the Militant Tendency had been driven out of the Labour party, the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) has nailed that lie once and for all. The first thing that one noticed was that the hon. Gentleman did not bother to tell us which Labour candidate he supports in the Walton by-election. That is not surprising, because a whole chapter of the book, "Liverpool—A City that Dared to Fight", by Peter Taaffe and Tony Mulhearn, is devoted to a tribute to the hon. Gentleman. The book quotes the Liverpool Echo of 10 June 1983, which stated:
The election of Terry Fields is an embarrassment to members of Labour's National Executive who have tried for months to throw Militant supporters out of the party.
People from outside Liverpool can learn from that book that the platform on which the hon. Gentleman stood in that election and which he has outlined to the House tonight is exactly the same political programme as is being used now by Lesley Mahmood, the Militant candidate in the by-election—so much so that the slogan that was used by the hon. Member for Broadgreen—"A workers' MP on a worker's wage"—is now being used by Lesley Mahmood on every piece of her campaign literature. It is therefore clear where the hon. Gentleman's sympathies lie and why he did not say who he is supporting.
However, what is also clear now is why the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) reacted with such anger when I told him that he had previously been against Militants being thrown out of the Labour party. He may like to play the indiarubber man in this debate but, unfortunately for him, these things are on the public record. The Guardian of 2 January 1986 referred to an article that the hon. Gentleman wrote for Tribune, in which he stated:
wholesale purges will either destroy us all or suck a broad swathe of the party into a very authoritarian and rigid mould.
The article continued by stating that Labour should
cease the purge mentality which is currently sweeping through the party.
The hon. Member for Brightside may well have changed his mind, but when it counted—when Militant had to be faced up to—he would not do it, and that is why he was so angry—

Mr. Blunkett: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I shall not do what I would normally do, Madam Deputy Speaker, and show the hon. Gentleman the courtesy of giving way to him, because he would not do that to me. [Interruption.] He can call names, but he cannot give way—and neither shall I.
It is four years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] If name calling is not good enough for the hon. Member for Brightside, he should have given way when I asked him to do so.

Mr. Blunkett: I did.

Mr. Hughes: It is now four years since the openly avowed Militant Tendency Labour council in Liverpool was forced out—and what has changed? After 100 days, the Liverpool Echo carried out a survey of what had been achieved, concluding that, although there had been some progress, much work remained to be done. In 1989—in fact, almost exactly two years ago today—a report to the finance and strategy committee of Liverpool city council stated:
Every effort must be made to ensure committee budgets are contained within the estimates approved.
It listed all the things that needed to be done to keep the budget under control.
Four years later, so little has changed that we are still hearing the same rhetoric from the Labour party—"We will improve if you give us time." But what is the record? One thing about which there has been deep concern in Liverpool is the army of thugs known as "Hatton's private army". We have seen them on "GBH", which is not simply a piece of drama or rhetoric; it shows what actually happened. Has Hatton's private army been abolished? No, it has not. Admittedly, it is on strike, but it still exists in the city. City property is now unprotected, and £5 million-worth of property has either been stolen or destroyed as a consequence.
As we have heard, Liverpool's debt burden has increased. The council has delayed and agonised over every decision facing it. When the gardening and parks contract was fiddled in an attempt to give it to the direct service organisation—although that would have cost £1 million more—what did the Labour party under Harry Rimmer do? Did it apologise and say, "We will not do this again"? No. It took a deputation to the Secretary of State for the Environment saying, "Can we do the same thing again next year? Can we give the contract to the direct service organisation?"
Liverpool city council employs more workers per 1,000 population than the authorities in Manchester, Birmingham or Leeds, and, even under its present plans, it intends to continue that trend. The street cleaning contract is due to be reconsidered next January. A paper from the chief executive relating to the policy and resources meeting of 18 June this year stated:
The City Council needs to move away from a culture of short termism, crisis management and ad hocery".
However, the street cleaning contract will have to go out to tender. In a report for a meeting this week, the council states:
To date, no formal report has been considered by a City Council Committee on the level of efficiency by the street cleansing DSO, and the likelihood of that DSO being able to successfully compete for its work." Considering the difficult ies that the council has encountered when putting the rubbish collecting contract out to tender and the agony and pain for


the people of Liverpool, one would have thought that, if the Labour party cared at all about the people of Liverpool, it would have started those discussions already.
The city council has failed to claim Government grants. We have heard a lot from the hon. Member for Brightside about money that should have been given to the council, but if the council cared about such matters, why has it been so incompetent that it has failed to claim the grant that was available to the city? That is incompetence on a big scale.
I should like to highlight one thing that I noticed when I visited Liverpool a week ago which shows the attitude of Liverpool's current Labour administration. I refer to the Merseyside trade union, community and unemployed resource centre at 24 Hardman street. It was initially set up by the Trades Union Congress, with TUC funds. However, when the city council—the post-Hatton council that the hon. Member for Brightside tells us is so responsible—had a £51 million deficit in December 1987, it decided to give that centre £0·25 million. The then finance committee chairman, Keith Hackett, an acolyte of Keva Coombes—they both voted last week against contracting out Liverpool's rubbish services—gave assurances that the money would not be used for party or propaganda purposes. The co-ordinator of the centre, Kevin Coyne, who is now a Kinnockite Labour councillor, said:
the centre is non party political".
I invite the press who are covering the Walton by-election in large numbers to visit that centre. Anyone who does so can see that its main or probably sole purpose is the propagation of Labour party policy. It is a propaganda organ of the Labour party in Liverpool. Any visitor would know that, and I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has visited the centre.
Its library is almost entirely devoted to Labour politics and includes a press cutting section entitled "Thatcher's demise". The language and content of the centre's newsletter, called "Dole Drums", are anti-Tory and pro-Labour. An article about the centre's resident theatre group, the Network, is headed "The Network acting for Socialism"—the centre is meant to be non-political and non-propaganda—and invites a response from
people who are talking your sort of politics, or would like to become actively involved in using theatre in the struggle for political change".
The representatives of the city council on the management committee who approve of what is going on in the centre are Kinnockite Labour Councillors Concepcion and Edwards. The facilities at the centre, which is a large imposing building, are lavish. It has a conference room for 200, a family lounge, a well-equipped theatre and a bar entitled "The Flying Picket". The walls of the centre are covered in socialist memorabilia, including plaques thanking it for supplying pickets for strikes as far away as Dover, and huge displays of material from the miners' strike. A collection in a glass case, with a photograph of Arthur Scargill being arrested, is set out like a religious shrine. Political banners often hang outside. One said "Repeal the 1986 Social Security Act". However, a Conservative councillor—I accept that he was one of only two—put an enforcement order on it and had it removed.
A job advertisement on one of the notice boards proves that the Labour party in Liverpool still likes to break the

law. It is for a part-time vacancy at a left-wing bookshop called "News from Nowhere" and advertises for a black woman. That offends against the Race Relations Act 1976, and the Labour party knows it.
That centre for the unemployed is clearly part of the Labour party's organisation in Liverpool. It is clear throughout Merseyside that such centres are part of that organisation. In Wallasey, the Labour party's campaign at the last election was run from just such a centre.
Not only Liverpool is infected by Militant, which is alive and thriving. Just two years ago, a £10,000 grant was given to the Anti-Poll Tax Union, a Militant front organisation, voted for by the Labour party. As we have already heard in this debate, there are Militant-supporting Labour Members of Parliament. The mayor of the Wirral was hounded out of the Labour group for supporting ordinary Labour party policy against that of Militant and socialist organisers. That is the so-called cleansed Labour party on Merseyside.
LIverpool city council has recently made moves to act sensibly, as in the issuing of a rubbish collection contract last week. It issued that contract not because it believed in it, but because it was forced to do so by the district auditor in his damning letter to the council in January. The council has applied to become a housing action trust, which I welcome as it would bring extra resources to the people of Liverpool.
However, as was confirmed this morning by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) speaking for the Labour candidate in Liverpool, Walton, the Labour party has promised to repeal all those laws. The district auditor's service of the audit commission, competitive tendering laws, housing action trusts—consistently opposed by the Labour party—would all be repealed by a Labour Government. So much for the cleansed Labour party in Liverpool. Labour Members do not mean what they say but simply want the heat to go away, so that Militant can rule again inside the Labour party in Liverpool.

Mr. Robert M. Wareing: I am pleased to take part in this debate, because I am proud of the fact that I was born and bred in Liverpool. I am proud because Liverpool has been, is and will be in the future a great city.
However, I am surprised at the temerity of the Liberal Democrats in tabling the motion. It is as though all Liverpool's problems stem from the so-called "Hatton period" of Liverpool city council. Liverpool's problems far predate that period.
I have often referred to the period between 1973 and 1983 as Liverpool city council's sterile years. During those years, the Labour party could not pass a single budget without the support or abstention of one of the opposition parties. Although the Liberals did not have an absolute majority, in 1973, for example, they had 48 of the 99 seats—as near as damn it a majority on the council. The Labour party was in power for most of the time in which the Liberals dominated the city council. Between 1974 and 1979, the Labour Government increased the rate support grant from £63 million to £109 million. One would have expected an improvement and expansion in the services and an improvement in the maintenance of the housing


stock. Not a bit of it. The increase in rate support grant was used not to extend or even maintain services, but to keep down the rates.
In 1975–76, when inflation was at 27 per cent., the Liberal party on the city council managed to introduce a 1 per cent. or 1p cut in the rates. What do hon. Members suppose would happen to services if inflation were running at 27 per cent. and revenue were cut by 1 per cent.? The answer is perfectly obvious—the services are held back or cut.
For example, between 1974 and 1978 housing repairs and maintenance in the city of Liverpool were cut by £2·75 million. Grants to voluntary organisations were slashed. They were cut for the Childs Wooton adult education centre, which catered largely for the black population in Toxteth, and for the Vauxhall law centre. Liberals always tell us about community policies, but they cut the grant to the Neighbourhood Projects group in Liverpool. They closed the Croxteth Lodge old people's home, despite the fact that there was a long waiting list for such accommodation.
To find the money, they introduced a £4 charge for pensioners' bus passes. Funnily enough, in their propaganda the Liberals said that they did not do that. The "Focus" pamphlet that was pushed through people's doors in the Tuebrook ward in the late 1970s said:
Bus pass disgrace. Liberals were horrified when they heard of the proposal to reduce the Rates Increase by asking our Senior Citizens to pay for their Bus Passes.
They introduced the measure but were horrified. Another "Focus" leaflet that was pushed through people's doors stated:
David Alton kicks £4 pass into touch. Moves were recently made to charge pensioners for their bus passes. David Alton was against this move and persuaded Councillors to drop the idea.
What it did not say was that the idea came from the Liberals on Liverpool city council.

Mr. Alton: I hope that we are not about to rerun our debates during the Liverpool, Edge Hill by-election, when the hon. Gentleman was my opponent. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there are times when we disagree with policies within our own party. Surely he should congratulate me on having been successful on that occasion.

Mr. Wareing: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was in a minority of one or two in his party. The fact is that his party introduced the idea, and the Labour party and even the Tory party opposed it.

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wareing: No, because I have a lot more to say first.
We have heard about the drop in population in Liverpool and people have made snide comments about people leaving Liverpool because they want to get away from the Labour-run council. Merseyside has a population of 1·25 million people. Many people live outside the boundaries of Liverpool city and are part of the overspill population in places such as Kirkby, Knowsley and Crosby. Some live on the other side of the River Mersey. In almost all the great cities there is a movement away from the centre to the outskirts.
I am sorry that the Liberal Democrat party has sought to be party political about Liverpool. I am sure that if there were not a by-election in Liverpool, Walton, we should not have had this debate now and the Liberal

Democrats would not have chosen the same subject. The Archbishop of Liverpool and the Bishop of Liverpool have written to
encourage all our fellow-citizens, who have the good of Liverpool and its people at heart … to support the efforts of the City Council to put our house in order.
They also say:
All political parties over the years have had a share in the long decline of Liverpool's prosperity.
I do not disagree with them. We have all had some responsibility. Why do we not have the humility to accept that there is responsibility on all our shoulders? For God's sake, we must get away from the argument that it is one party's fault.
The housing problems in Liverpool did not start in the 1980s. On 10 August 1978, when a Labour Government were in power and a Liberal administration ran the city, an article in the Liverpool Echo said:
Liverpool 'like a bomb zone' … An all-party delegation of Glasgow District Councillors is 'shocked and Horrified' at Liverpool's council housing.
Who was chairman of Liverpool's housing committee at the time? None other than the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). For goodness' sake, let us get away from the idea that the Liberal Democrats have no responsibility.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill also talked about dismantling the municipal empire. Some 80,000 council houses were to be sold. That was referred to by Ian Craig in the Liverpool Echo as the "sale of the century". A stop was put to council house building in 1979. That was at a time when 16,000 people were on the housing waiting list and 13,000 other people were in inadquate housing in Liverpool. At that time, the Liberal council stopped building council houses. Most of those people were not rich; they were relatively poor and some were very poor. The Liberals stopped building council houses although they built houses for sale. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) referred to that earlier. The low expenditure levels were used by the Secretary of State for the Environment to hold down the assistance given to Liverpool later.
The Liberal Democrats' hypocrisy continues. Time and again on the city council, they voted with Militant Tendency. Last Wednesday, having voted for Labour's budget, the Liberal Democrats moved a motion negating its proper implementation. They proposed to restore 94 jobs in the housing administration at a cost of £1·25 million, but they did not say how that would be paid for. As a result of Government policies, the housing revenue account is now ring-fenced and cannot be subsidised out of the poll tax. The motion went through on a combined Liberal Democrat and Militant vote. That is the real reason why we had difficulty last week on Liverpool city council.
The Tories must not think that all was marvellous during Conservative periods of office. I refer to the open letter to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who was then Prime Minister, in the Liverpool Daily Post of 11 February 1972. The letter concerned conditions in Liverpool during the last year in which the Tories had control of the city council.

Mr. David Shaw: They did not have control.

Mr. Wareing: Yes, they did. They were in the majority in 1972.
Since 1979, £650 million has been cut from the revenue support grant to Liverpool. The housing investment programme is now far lower than the real value of HIP in 1979. The poll tax-capping threat is one of the immediate causes of the present budget crisis.
The Secretary of State for the Environment has held the post before. When he talks about partnership, we must ask how much partnership we have had from the Tory Government. What on earth have we had? In 1981, the present Secretary of State came to Liverpool. Many people in Liverpool regard him rather more highly than they do the average Tory Minister, because he saw the city before and after the Toxteth riots. After the riots, he wrote a report for the Cabinet and because somebody said that it took a riot to get him to Toxteth, he entitled the report "It took a riot".
Before one could say "Jack Robinson", the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), the previous Prime Minister, arranged a meeting at which the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) was ordered to stop the report and to stop its implementation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman met the Secretary of State at a restaurant in Marsham street and "It took a riot" never saw the light of day. Instead, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East advised the Prime Minister that they should manage the decline of Liverpool. He called for a "managed decline" of Liverpool.
It is wrong to say that no council in the Liverpool area was willing to do something. Merseyside county council was abolished by the Government because it had a Labour majority. Conservatives, Liberals and Labour members of the council opposed the abolition. The Merseyside chamber of commerce opposed the abolition. The bishop and the archbishop were opposed to the abolition. The Tory Government have been as extreme as the Hattons of this world. In the past 10 years, Liverpool has suffered from extremism. Thatcherite extremism and Hatton extremism are two sides of the same evil coin. Our city wants no more of it, and that will be the message from the people of Walton on 4 July.
I deplore the speeches made in the House last Friday by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. How on earth can a Minister, using such prejudiced ideas and making such irrational statements, hold office? I have today written a letter of complaint to the Prime Minister because everyone in Liverpool—Tories, Socialists and Liberals—deplores what the Minister said. He simply regurgitated gossip. He is not fit to remain a Minister, and I have asked the Prime Minister to do what is right. It is disgraceful that a man who expresses such prejudices should be asked to adjudicate in a few days' time on Liverpool's bid. How can he be capable of reasoned thought about what Liverpool proposes when he holds such prejudices?
Some of us share the responsibility for believing some people on the left wing of the Labour party who said that they were democratic socialists. People in Liverpool have suffered as a result of Militant using Hatton as a recruiting sergeant for its cause. I shed no tears for the beginning of the end of the static security force and the intimidation and problems faced by Liverpool's people.
Harry Rimmer was my agent when I was first elected in 1983. He is an honest, decent man, and the people who are trying to solve Liverpool's problems are genuine, good people. Heaven knows, they are courageous. They have more guts in their little fingers than the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and the hon. Member for Stroud have in their entire being. The people of Liverpool are in the front line of the battle against extremism.
Tories tell us that we should get rid of our extremists, but they should take action against the extremists who have determined their policies. The right hon. Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who is now earning her living from making speeches in the United States rather than in the House, are extremists.
Liverpool has had many achievements to its name over the past few years. I agreed with the first part of the speech by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. However, the improvement at the port predates the abolition of the dock labour scheme. The Mersey barrage started life as an idea when I entered the county council and became chairman of the economic development committee. One of my first actions was to tell my officers that I wanted to see some action on the Dee barrage. They said that that could be difficult because two other county councils were involved. The result was the Mersey barrage.
Liverpool is proud of itself and it disowns both Thatcherite and Hatton extremists. It has certainly got rid of the Thatcherite extremists because not a single Tory Member represents a Liverpool constituency—nor is there likely to be one. The Hatton period has gone for ever, as the people of Walton will demonstrate on 4 July. If the Tory candidate in Walton wants to save his deposit he must dissociate himself from the speech on Friday by the hon. Member for Salisbury.

Sir Cyril Smith: We have had some good speeches in an interesting debate, which was opened superbly by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who for many years has been the only hon. Member in Liverpool fighting against Militant Tendency. I welcome the views of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), but it has taken him 20 years to come to them. He made a constructive speech, about which I shall shortly say more. My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill, who lives in Liverpool, has been tabling motions and has been subjected to phone calls and all sorts of pressure. He has shown great courage in standing up for the people of Liverpool when people in the Labour party were not prepared to do so.

Mr. Hind: It is important to remember that Militant came to power in Liverpool council via the Labour party. In the autumn of 1985, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) prepared a report dictating what should be done, but it has taken Labour six years to come to its senses and do anything about that. It is to the credit of other parties rather than Labour itself that Labour Members have been brought to their senses.

Sir Cyril Smith: There is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman says.
Many of the quotes used by the hon. Member for West Derby were from the 1970s. When the Government turn


on the official Opposition, Labour Members say that they have not been in power since 1979 and cannot be blamed for what is happening. However, in arguing against the Liberal Democrats, Labour Members have quoted what happened 19 or 20 years ago.
I urge the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) to play a full part in the Walton by-election. He will have problems about the part that he should play and deciding which candidate to support. Yesterday, in a television programme in which I took part, an Opposition Member said that any Labour Member who did not support the official Labour candidate would be expelled and dealt with by the national executive. The people of Broadgreen will have to look for another candidate if the hon. Member for Broadgreen does not avoid the cameras that are in place throughout Walton to photograph Labour people who are assisting the wrong candidates so that evidence can be produced at the right time. He will have to shove his leaflets through doors at midnight if he is to survive the pre-selection process.
I shall not say much about the speech by the hon. Member for Brightside, because there is not much to say about it. It was blurred, and was certainly not the best speech that he has made in the House. The same applies to the disappointing speech by the Secretary of State, much of which dealt with the past. He told us that Tories were marvellous, but failed to say that only Governments have the power to initiative legislation. He asked why we did not introduce legislation, but for years we have not been in a position to do that. His speech did not rise to the occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale delivered a superb, constructive and helpful speech. Undoubtedly, housing, the main point with which my hon. Friend dealt, is a major problem on Merseyside. Perhaps that will allow me to say a word on the vote that took place last Wednesday, about which there has been so much comment.
The first point that I must make clear is that the 94 jobs involved were not included in the budget agreed with the Liberal Democrat councillors on 10 March. The redundancies were added to the programme at a private meeting attended by five Labour Members, and the two Liberal Democrat members objected to them.
Are we seriously to he criticised for objecting to the fact that the 94 jobs that were to go included 15 bricklayers, 10 plasterers, 30 plumbers, 24 electricians and 15 painters, at a time when there are 5,000 empty houses in Liverpool, many of which are waiting for repairs? The solution dreamed up by the Labour party was the sacking of the 94 people employed to repair them, most of whom were skilled craftsmen. What sense is there in that?
It may then be said that that takes £1 million from the budget, but if one quarter of the empty houses in Liverpool were let as a result of the repairs being done, the council would be able to collect in rent the £1 million that would be needed to pay the craftsmen. So I believe that the Liberal Democrat councillors were right on Wednesday. That is why they were supported by the Conservative councillors and by four moderate councillors, as well as by the Militant Tendency.
The debate has shown the rottenness not only of Militant but of the voting system. I shall not make a long speech about proportional representation, but let me repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill said earlier. In 1991, 56,000 people voted for the Liberal

Democrats in Liverpool, and 52,000 voted for Labour. As with central Government, the council has been elected on a minority vote, and the consequence is plain for all to see.
What is the consequence? Never mind 1970 or 1980, what about 1991? What about those kids—I gather in he constituency of the hon. Member for West Derby—

Mr. Wareing: Not in my constituency.

Sir Cyril Smith: All right, not in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but in Liverpool, these kids were barred from school by glue being put on the gates. Six bully boys were outside trying to stop them going to school. What about the report in this morning's paper about a Labour councillor in Liverpool whose job and person were threatened and who had to lock herself in her office, simply because she voted with the moderate Labour group? All these things happened not in 1973 or 1983 but in 1991.
We want to know what the Labour group in Liverpool and the Labour party nationally are going to do. What will the trade union movement do? What action will trade union national officers take about situations in which people, under the guise of responsible trade unionists, can threaten people's jobs and try to stop children going to school by putting glue on gates?
Let me tell the House something else about 1991. It was not the Liberals who borrowed £800 million and are now paying interest charges to Japan, Switzerland and other countries. That was done by Labour councillors, while the national party sat and never said a flipping word to stop it. That is what is wrong with Liverpool today.
When hon. Members asked my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill about housing, they said nothing, although the Secretary of State did, about the 35,000 houses in Liverpool that were repaired through general improvement grants while the Liberals had some influence in the city. It may be true that we built more houses for sale than for rent but we gave priority to sitting council tenants, and we paid removal expenses and solicitors fees. While it may be true that we did not build as many as we would have liked, it is equally true that, instead of demolishing houses, as your lot were constantly doing, we repaired them—35,000 of them.

Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you were not responsible for what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) was talking about. I wish that he would refer to real cases.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am sure that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) was not referring to me.

Sir C. Smith: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have said "the hon. Member for West Derby". I realise that he is smarting because he never got over my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill licking him in the by-election in Edge Hill.
There is rottenness in the city of Liverpool. The cancer is still eating away at it. We desperately need a new approach. If the Archbishop and the bishops and the people of the country are as concerned about the city as I believe they are, they should know that the average person in Liverpool is a good, decent, honest hard-working person, who is fed up to the back teeth. If parliamentary conventions did not preclude it, Iwould tell the House what was said to me when I knocked on the door of a house in Walton [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I will go this


far. The man who answered my knock told me that he had always voted Labour. I asked him. "What do you think about what is happening in Liverpool today?" and he said, "I'm something off." The word began with "P". Actually, it meant that as well. That is indicative of the attitude of the people of Liverpool: they want peace and progress.
I hope that the archbishop, the bishops, the moderate Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the Confederation of British Industry, the trade union leaders and many others in Liverpool can come together around a table to try to get a consensus of opinion on how to make progress. It behoves the Government to encourage that initiative and financially to induce it. That is the only way forward in the long term, as it is the only way that Militant will be defeated, as it deserves to be.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith), not least because of his lightness of touch and depth of experience, which have added a dimension that would otherwise have been lacking in the debate. I found this a deeply depressing debate. It is not just that it has been an intrusion on private grief, on the squabble between the Liberal and Labour parties. It is far more important than that. We have seen exhibited tonight a deep malaise in the body politic of Liverpool.
It is my duty and privilege to spend a great deal of time with inner-city communities—communities which represent the rich multiplicity of culture, aspirations and frustrations. I meet many people who have street cred in their communities. They tell me that they know their communities, and they do. They tell me that they represent the views of their communities, and so they do, if sometimes partially. What most of those good people have in common is that they do not belong to political parties and they are not elected councillors. It is the tragedy of many of our inner cities and part of the tragedy of Liverpool.
In the many years during which I have been involved in politics, and long before I became a Member of this place—certainly when I was fighting the constituency of Holborn and St. Pancras, as it is now described, against the hon. Member who now represents that constituency—I have never been accused by anyone, as far as I am aware, of prejudice. I accept that I have been accused of many other things. That being so, I shall respond to some of the comments that were taken up in the debate last Friday. What a pity that it was such a thinly attended debate.
If anyone reads my speech in Hansard rather than relying on other sources, he or she might have taken a different view of my remarks. I have responded already to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), but I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House of the words of a Liverpudlian who is living in Bournemouth, as reported in The Daily Mail. Apparently, he said:
A hell of a lot more people would live in Liverpool if it hadn't been for the Militant council.
I accept that that is true. Someone else said:
Liverpool is the Third World of England. Who wants to live in a place like that?

I believe that the person who said that is entirely wrong. I believe that Liverpool, like so many other great northern cities, has turned the corner. I agree strongly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, when the history of the 1980s is written, it will be seen to be the decade of turning for Liverpool.
It is our ambition in government, in partnership with responsible councils, to ensure, through education, training, jobs and quality of life that people do not want to leave our inner cities, and that those who have left them want to return, especially in the north of England. We hope that many others will be attracted to join us and others in building a bright new future for the ancient communities of the inner cities.

Mr. Wareing: How can the comments that the Minister made during a long speech last Friday help the aim of attracting more investment to Liverpool and more people to live in an extremely good city?

Mr. Key: As the hon. Gentleman says, my comments were made during a long and serious debate. I was drawing attention to the dismal failure of a council in Liverpool—what I am about to say has been borne out by a quote from the Daily Mail—which has led to people feeling that they were driven out of the city.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have read my hon. Friend's speech. He said categorically in column 639 that Liverpool is "still a great city". What is wrong with that?

Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is not such a partial observer as Opposition Members.
I have not enjoyed the nauseous piety of the Liberal Democrats this afternoon and evening. I accept, of course, that the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill reflect long experience of Liverpool, but I believe that the Liberal Democrats are a big part of the problem in the city. It is no good the hon. Member for Mossley Hill blaming everything on the Labour party when we remember the period when the Liberal party, as it then was, was in control of the city, when little happened for so long.
I welcome the words of Archbishop Worlock, Bishop Sheppard and Dr. Newton. I think that they expressed what was genuinely meant, and that the Churches in Liverpool are playing an extremely positive role in seeking to bring communities together. I hope that the people of Liverpool will respond to the words of the Church leaders.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that Liverpool has been offered no help or hope and has received nothing but carping and baying criticism. He talked of the problem caused by lack of money. I wish to tackle some of the hon. Gentleman's allegations, but first, it must be said that if the Labour party is preparing for government, the hon. Gentleman's defence from the Opposition Front Bench demonstrated what we might expect from a Labour Administration. What a tragedy. It was the worst defence by an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman of the Labour party in opposition that I have witnessed.
The claim that Liverpool has been starved of resources is a bit thin. The city has received almost £2 billion of support in the past 13 years. During the same period Manchester has received £1·5 billion. That is a city with a


slightly smaller population. Birmingham, with a population almost twice that of Liverpool's, has received support of about £3 billion over the same period. Proportionately, Liverpool has received a very good deal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) made a remarkable speech, and I am grateful to him. He put into perspective many of Liverpool's problems. He was, however, partial in quoting Liverpool's problems. He failed to mention the arrears of rates, including business rates, which amount to £37 million. If we add community charge arrears, we reach a grand total of £65 million of arrears. That is entirely due to inefficiency. Think what the grand total of arrears could have achieved, if collected, in helping to regenerate Liverpool.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) made a brave speech. It was the sort of speech that I heard when I was a parliamentary candidate and came to the House to listen to debates. I suppose that, 10 years ago, many speeches were made of the sort that the hon. Gentleman delivered today. I only hope that it falls on stony ground in Liverpool in coming years. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's approach is any longer appropriate, if it ever was, to the politics of a free society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) took us down the harsh road of the reality of politics in Liverpool. I am grateful to him for his robust contribution. Rent arrears, which have been referred to by several hon. Members, increased the community charge by about £30. That is the consequence if rents are not efficiently collected.
Housing has featured prominently in the debate. I was pleased to hear that Liverpool city council's housing committee has agreed to the recommendations that appear in two reports. Its acceptance this morning of those recommendations gives us real hope for the future. First, it has agreed that the council's multi-storey tower blocks are potentially suitable for a housing action trust. Who would have thought two years ago that Liverpool would be talking about an HAT? A more detailed feasibility study that includes tenant consultation should now begin. Secondly, it has been agreed that a joint report on identifying the scope for disposal of empty council stock to housing associations and house builders should go forward to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. I understand that the city council and the chairman of the housing corporation will be processing this development. That is good news on the housing front.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, many of the achievements that we have seen in Liverpool are due almost entirely to the Government's policies. Liverpool is one of 15 authorities that have been invited to bid for City Challenge. It has sketched out its initial proposals to my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I will be visiting Liverpool in the coming weeks to take that further.
The government of Liverpool is crucial to the future success of the city. It has been through a long period of decline, but that is coming to an end. The initiatives that were launched at the beginning of the 1980s by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State show how success can come to the city. For example, Albert dock attracts over 6 million visitors a year. There has been the creation of the Wavertree technology park and the developments round the Anglican cathedral, which I have seen for myself.
Despite the successes, progress in rebuilding is not recognised by those outside Liverpool. The city has not yet been able to take advantage of the substantial investments that have been made by the Government.
The people of Liverpool should look to their history. I tell them this: "You have a great history but you can also have a great future. Your city voted overwhelmingly Conservative in its heyday. What have you gained from years of socialist rule, whether it has been Liberal, Labour or Militant by name? What have you gained but depression and decline over all those years?" All that has gone wrong must be laid at the doors of successive Labour and Liberal administrations. In sharp contrast, so much of what has gone right has been generated by this Conservative Government. Labour is still in hock to the Militants. It is still the party of protest, not the party of government.
About once a quarter, the Leader of the Opposition stamps his foot. He then tells us that Liverpool is under control. Why should we believe him this time? His party in Liverpool has told us where it stands. The hon. Members for Broadgreen, Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) are too busy to campaign for the official Labour candidate. They are totally united—solid for socialism, mummers for Militant.
The people of Liverpool are doing a good job. The teachers of Liverpool—

Mr. James Wallace: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 18, Noes 210.

Division No. 185]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Maclennan, Robert


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Beith, A. J.
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Bellotti, David
Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Carr, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Fearn, Ronald



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. James Wallace and


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Archy Kirkwood


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boswell, Tim


Allason, Rupert
Bottomley, Peter


Amess, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Amos, Alan
Bowis, John


Arbuthnot, James
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Bright, Graham


Ashby, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Aspinwall, Jack
Buck, Sir Antony


Atkins, Robert
Budgen, Nicholas


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butler, Chris


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carrington, Matthew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Carttiss, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Benyon, W.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chapman, Sydney


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William






Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cran, James
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cryer, Bob
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Curry, David
Mills, Iain


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Miscampbell, Norman


Day, Stephen
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Devlin, Tim
Mitchell, Sir David


Dicks, Terry
Moate, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Monro, Sir Hector


Dover, Den
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Dunn, Bob
Moore, Rt Hon John


Durant, Sir Anthony
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Dykes, Hugh
Morrison, Sir Charles


Eggar, Tim
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Emery, Sir Peter
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Evennett, David
Mudd, David


Fallon, Michael
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Forman, Nigel
Nicholls, Patrick


Forth, Eric
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Norris, Steve


Fox, Sir Marcus
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Freeman, Roger
Oppenheim, Phillip


French, Douglas
Page, Richard


Fry, Peter
Paice, James


Gale, Roger
Patnick, Irvine


Gill, Christopher
Pawsey, James


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Goodlad, Alastair
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Powell, William (Corby)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Price, Sir David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Raffan, Keith


Gregory, Conal
Redwood, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Hague, William
Riddick, Graham


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hannam, John
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Harris, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Haselhurst, Alan
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hayward, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Shersby, Michael


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Skinner, Dennis


Hind, Kenneth
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hordern, Sir Peter
Speller, Tony


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Squire, Robin


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Irvine, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Jack, Michael
Stern, Michael


Jackson, Robert
Stevens, Lewis


Janman, Tim
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Jessel, Toby
Sumberg, David


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Summerson, Hugo


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Key, Robert
Taylor, Sir Teddy


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Thorne, Neil


Latham, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Trotter, Neville


Loyden, Eddie
Twinn, Dr Ian


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Waller, Gary


Maclean, David
Watts, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Madden, Max
Whitney, Ray


Mans, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann





Wiggin, Jerry
Yeo, Tim


Wilkinson, John



Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Wood, Timothy
Mr. David Davis.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 23.

Division No. 186]
[7.12 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Goodlad, Alastair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Amess, David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Amos, Alan
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Arbuthnot, James
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gregory, Conal


Ashby, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Hague, William


Atkins, Robert
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Batiste, Spencer
Hannam, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Harris, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Haselhurst, Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bottomley, Peter
Hayward, Robert


Bowis, John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brazier, Julian
Hind, Kenneth


Bright, Graham
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Budgen, Nicholas
Irvine, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Jack, Michael


Butler, Chris
Jackson, Robert


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Janman, Tim


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jessel, Toby


Carrington, Matthew
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carttiss, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Key, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Latham, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lawrence, Ivan


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cran, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Curry, David
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Maclean, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Mans, Keith


Devlin, Tim
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dicks, Terry
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dover, Den
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Durant, Sir Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
Mills, Iain


Eggar, Tim
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Emery, Sir Peter
Mitchell, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Moate, Roger


Evennett, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Fallon, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Forman, Nigel
Moore, Rt Hon John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Forth, Eric
Morrison, Sir Charles


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Fox, Sir Marcus
Moss, Malcolm


Freeman, Roger
Moynihan, Hon Colin


French, Douglas
Mudd, David


Fry, Peter
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Gale, Roger
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Nicholls, Patrick






Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stern, Michael


Norris, Steve
Stevens, Lewis


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sumberg, David


Page, Richard
Summerson, Hugo


Paice, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thorne, Neil


Powell, William (Corby)
Thurnham, Peter


Price, Sir David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raffan, Keith
Trotter, Neville


Redwood, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Riddick, Graham
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Watts, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, David (Dover)
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Widdecombe, Ann


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Speller, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Mr. Tim Boswell and


Squire, Robin
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Steen, Anthony



NOES


Alton, David
Maclennan, Robert


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Madden, Max


Beith, A. J.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Bellotti, David
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Carr, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fearn, Ronald
Wallace, James


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Wigley, Dafydd


Howells, Geraint



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Bob Cryer.


Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House reaffirms its belief in Liverpool as one of this country's great cities with a proud history and prospects for a secure future; condemns the incompetence, intimidation, waste and subservience to trade union dictation which have characterised successive administrations in Liverpool over the past decade and have caused untold damage to the City and its people; calls for better Government in the City to restore basic services and to pursue policies of fiscal rectitude, decentralised administration, partnership with central Government and private enterprise and consultation with the people of Liverpool; notes the steps taken by the present administration in response to the Government's compulsory competitive tendering legislation to put the interests of its residents first by contracting with a private sector firm for refuse collection; and commends the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition for supporting the Conservative policy of fair and open competition in Liverpool, in the knowledge that it is right, but observes with dismay the Labour Party's opposition to it elsewhere in the country.

London Underground Bill

Order read for consideration of Bill, as amended.

Question, That the Bill be now considered, put and agreed to.

New clause 1

FOR PROTECTION OF JUBILEE GARDENS

'For the protection of the local community, the tourist industry, the wider community and the public interest the following provisions shall apply and have effect—

(1) In this section—

"Jubilee Gardens" means so much of the lands adjoining the River Thames and known as Jubilee Gardens as is shown as part of the land numbered 6 in the London Borough of Lambeth on the deposited plans and shown edged green on the signed plan;
"the London Residuary Body" means the London Residuary Body established under the provisions of section 57 of the Local Government Act 1985 and includes its successors in title;
"The Queen's Walk" means so much of the embankment walkway of the River Thames as is shown as part of the land numbered 6 in the London Borough of Lambeth on the deposited plans and shown edged blue on the signed plan;
"the riverside building" means the building situated on the land shown edged yellow on the signed plan; and
"the signed plan" means the plan of which five copies were signed by Sir Michael Nuebert, the Chairman of the committee of the House of Commons to whom the Bill for this Act was referred, and deposited respectively—

(a) in the office of the Clerk of Parliaments, House of Lords;
(b) in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons;
(c) at the registered office of the Company;
(d) at the registered office of the Corporation; and
(e) with the proper officer of the council of the London Borough of Lambeth.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 25 (Temporary possession of land) of this Act the Company shall only enter upon or take possession of that part of Jubilee Gardens hatched black on the signed plan with the exception of that part of Jubilee Gardens hatched black on the signed plan which forms part of the central grass area denoted as Jubilee Gardens and surrounded by a dashed line on the signed plan.
(3) If theLondon Residuary Body shall at any time have disposed of Jubilee Gardens or any part thereof, the Queen's Walk or any part thereof or the riverside building or any part thereof the expression "successors in title" shall, for the purposes of this section, mean the owner for the time being of the Queen's Walk or any such part thereof and the owner for the time being of the riverside building or any such part thereof.
(4) In exercising the powers conferred upon them by this Act the Company shall keep to a minimum the extent and period of their possession and use of the remaining part of Jubilee Gardens and shall not in any event, without the consent of the London Residuary Body (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld), remain in possession of Jubilee Gardens for longer than 54 months.
(5) Before entering upon and taking possession temporarily of Jubilee Gardens the Company shall at their own expense remove all structures thereon (including all architectural, aesthetic and recreational features) to such alternative locations as the London Residuary Body may reasonably require and shall before relinquishing possession of Jubilee Gardens at their own expense ensure that the sarne items are returned to Jubilee Gardens and reinstated to the London Residuary Body's reasonable satisfaction.


(6) The Company's reinstatement of Jubilee Gardens shall be carried out to a similar standard to that existing prior to their possession of it, subject to the London Residuary Body's specification and their reasonable direction and approval.
(7) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 25 (Temporary possession of land) of this Act, the Company shall not enter upon or take possession of any part of the Queen's Walk except so much of the airspace over the Queen's Walk as may be required for the provision of an overhead conveyor.
(8) Any difference arising between the Company and the London Residuary Body under this section (other than a difference as to the meaning or construction of this section) shall be referred to and settled by arbitration.'. [Miss Hoey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Miss Kate Hoey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may take amendment No. 2: in page 22, line 18, leave out clause 33.

Miss Hoey: Let me apologise in advance: I shall probably have to speak for slightly longer than I am accustomed to. Normally, I make a point of speaking briefly, but I feel that the case should be put as fully as possible and placed on record, so that the House of Lords considers the Bill seriously.
A few things have changed since Second Reading last October. I said then that some of the most significant opposition to the Jubilee line extension was coming from the Waterloo area. As I made clear, however, despite the principled objections that some people advanced to the priority given to that line, a Bill to introduce it had already been decided on, and it was therefore necessary to support the construction of the extension—and to require the construction to take place as quickly as possible, for the benefit of all Londoners.
I do not think that anyone living in the Waterloo area opposes the Bill as such. What no one seems to have taken into account—although some, including London Underground, have given it more consideration than others—is the effect on the Waterloo area and, in particular, the loss of a unique and special open space in Jubilee gardens.
Since last October, Jubilee gardens has been declared metropolitan open land—which means, in effect, that it is a green belt. That status will come into effect when the new borough plan is approved next year. It was supported by the London Planning Advisory Committee—a statutory body—by the Royal Fine Art Commission and by a number of other bodies.
I may not always be regarded as especially knowledgeable about the arts, but I quote from the Royal Fine Art Commission, which says in its letter:
the Commission also wishes to encourage London Underground to move the work site required for the Jubilee Line extension back to the southern end of the site.
I shall explain the details in a moment.
There has been another change. The Queen's Walk Park Society now has planning permission for the creation of an extended park. That, too, has been supported by the Royal Fine Art Commission, which wrote to the London borough of Lambeth suggesting that this should happen.
The Department of the Environment's own planning guidance note asked boroughs to identify areas of open

space with a view to designating them metropolitan open land. The note clearly stated the necessary criteria. First, the area should
contribute to the physical structure or character of London by providing attractive breaks in the built up area".
Surely Jubilee gardens, which is just across the river, falls precisely within that definition.
Secondly, the area should
include open air facilities (especially for leisure, recreation and sport) for the people of the whole or part of London".
The area marks the end point of the London marathon. Unfortunately, since the London residuary body assumed responsibility, it has been less and less involved in the many riverside events in which thousands of Londoners have been able to participate in the past.
Thirdly, the area should
contain features or landscape of historic, recreational, nature conservation or scientific interest worthy of protection on account of their value nationally or to the whole or part of London. The presumption against development in the Green Belt applies equally to metropolitan open land.
Jubilee gardens has now been defined as metropolitan open land, following the Department's expressed wish that we should identify such sites.
I am sorry that the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities is not present. I am not accusing him of staying away deliberately, but I feel that the problem of Jubilee gardens, Waterloo and the underground system is very much in the hands of the Department of the Environment. At this stage, I am not blaming the Department, which wants to see the line built as quickly as possible. The argument of those who want to protect Jubilee gardens is that that can be done without ruining the gardens.
7.30 pm
It is not a case of Waterloo residents taking a NIMBY attitude and not wanting any development—they have already seen enormous changes in Waterloo in the form of developments that have affected the whole area, and which have not necessarily been beneficial. One of the arguments made for the Bill, to placate the people of Waterloo, is that it will benefit them—that the new local tube station to be built at Southwark would provide them with a more convenient alternative to Waterloo station. However, many residents already use Waterloo. That facility already exists.
In common with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who supports me on this issue, I do not oppose the extension or the station at Southwark, but the people of Waterloo have already seen the channel tunnel terminus steamrollered through. No matter how hard British Rail tried to minimise the chaos that work brought to the area, that was difficult to achieve. Work on the Waterloo viaduct has also affected local residents, and the construction of Southwark station will affect the residents of Roupell street and Hatfields.
Earlier this year, I received this letter from one of my constituents:
I live in a street that has been designated as forming the route of the Channel tunnel into Waterloo station. My street has become a building site with holes and heavy machinery everywhere. The pavement on both sides of the road is being dug up, so that my wife and two children have to walk down the middle of an increasingly busy road. This is a disgrace. British Rail have managed to get my narrow street, normally one-way traffic, designated two-way to suit their purposes, and I am genuinely frightened for the safety of my and other local children.


At least that resident and others have somewhere relatively near—Jubilee gardens—where their children can play, and where their families can have some respite from the chaos in that area. But that alternative will no longer be available if London Underground uses that site.
A sequence of planning decisions in the Waterloo area have gradually eroded the area of free space while increasing traffic and the other problems that confront an inner city area when large new office blocks are built. The threatened development of the south bank may look very pretty on the drawing board, but it will create huge problems for residents during its construction. There are also new office blocks planned for Waterloo road, Hercules road and Baylis road. Every road in the Waterloo area is being affected in one way or another. Residents now risk their last piece of green space by the river being turned into what can only be described as an urban slag heap for six years—perhaps less—and that is something that they will fight to the very end.
From the plan—it is a pity that right hon. and hon. Members cannot all have a copy—it is clear that London Underground wanted to take the spoil from the site that we want it to have. There is no disagreement between me and other hon. Members who support the clause and London Underground over that point. The project manager, Russell Black, may hate to be quoted again, but he clearly said that, if the development of county hall did not go ahead, London Underground would prefer that site, which would be in the public interest. None of the calculations has been challenged, and they show that it would cost London Underground £1 million less to use that site. Such a saving may be tiny in comparison with the overall budget, but it would be another advantage of locating the spoil site right up against county hall.
That site, which is currently used as a small car park, takes only a tiny part of Jubilee gardens. The London residuary body did not want that site to be used because it wished to protect its development plans, at the time when the County Hall Development Group was presenting grandiose proposals to build a hotel, offices, and houses with private gardens—which would also have encroached on Jubilee gardens. That scheme went the rounds of public consultation, but eventually the development company went into liquidation. That is the current terminology, but perhaps "bankruptcy" would be a better word.
Unless any right hon. or hon. Member has more up-to-date information, my understanding is that no one has put in another bid for county hall, and that it is owned only by the LRB, which is a public body. I understand also that no planning permission has been granted because the last public inquiry has not yet reported. I presume that the inspector's report is now with the Secretary of State for the Environment.
It was clear from the public inquiry that people did not want the county hall site to be developed into a hotel. Also, my own party and the Liberal Democrats want county hall to be returned to public use at some time—and that commitment will be realised when there is next a Labour Government.
Meanwhile, if the Secretary of State sees fit to grant planning permission for such a horrendous development, could he not do so on condition that for the first five years the developers allow London Underground access to the site? That seems perfectly reasonable. I hope that the inspector put that option to the Secretary of State for the Environment, and, if so, that will be considered.
The London residuary body managed to get a protection clause accepted at Committee stage. It not only says, "No way will anyone be allowed near our little bit of county hall, because we want that for our development," but it fails to protect the well-designed playground in the middle of Jubilee gardens—which, despite London Underground's willingness to relocate it, would otherwise be lost. That is why I am keen to see that protection clause deleted—if not today, when the Bill is considered in another place. As soon as the LRB sells the site, the new owner will have the right to get rid of the playground. We need to insert clauses into the Bill to bind a future developer, should there be one, to allowing London Underground access to the site.
The key to the whole issue is money. London Underground would save £1 million by moving to the site next to county hall. The LRB says that if it is not allowed access to the site for five years it cannot sell county hall for as much money and it would therefore sue London Underground—it said it would take London Underground to the cleaners—for between £50 million and £100 million.
The building is on sale for £150 million. The LRB is saying that it has a £1 billion scheme, and that if it does not have access to that site it cannot build a car park for 100 cars. I remind the House that at present there is no buyer for county hall. Even if all went well—putting aside questions of a general election, planning permission, the economy and the fact that there are not many developers wanting to buy county hall—no one could live in that riverside building for at least five years. Indeed, the original developers said that no one could live there for at least four years from the day they had access to the site.
That time scale would fit very neatly with the time scale envisaged in the Bill—which is likely to receive Royal Assent early next year—of four and a half years. Indeed, with no prospective buyers, the redevelopment of county hall may be some time away, if it ever happens. As no developer is currently interested in county hall, none of the original agreements, such as access to Jubilee gardens, can be upheld.
The question of compensation needs careful consideration. I do not believe the figures suggested by the LRB; it has not done its homework. Indeed, it appears that the Department of the Environment has not really considered the matter. I may be naive, but I feel that as the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport and the LRB are public bodies, we are merely talking about the passing of money from one public body to another. It is the LRB's argument that, under our proposal, it would obtain less money for county hall, which would be a cost to the public purse. I do not think that that cost, which is only a book-keeping exercise, would be as high as the LRB maintains—but in any case, we must weigh up that cost against the cost of the loss of a valuable amenity.
I have already stressed the difficulties for the people of Waterloo, but it goes further than that. Jubilee gardens is one of the last remaining green riverside sites in London. The loss of such a valuable amenity has not been properly considered—and that is without taking into account the saving of £1 million for London Underground. We must remember that it was Londoners who paid for county hall and Jubilee gardens. If there is to be a small loss to the


public purse so that Jubilee gardens can be kept in public use for six years, I consider that price to be well worth paying.
7.45 pm
There were two inquiries into the future of county hall, and I remind the House that the proposed developers at that time no longer exist. Of course, the LRB says that whoever buys county hall will have to adhere exactly to the plans of the original developer. I have not met many developers, but I have yet to meet one—or even an architect—who takes over a project and does not want to make changes. At the inquiries, it was stated that the housing aspect of the county hall development was not financially essential to the scheme. That shows that the LRB, if it gets planning permission, could go ahead with the hotel and the office projects, and not lose any money.
Everyone involved in the issue—London Underground, the Department of Transport, the people of Waterloo, the Waterloo community development group, the River Thames Society, the Open Spaces Society, the London River Authority and the Ramblers Association —have bent over backwards to be helpful. The only body to come out of the mess really badly is the LRB—yet it is a public body which is supposed to be acting in the interests of Londoners. It is appalling even to think of allowing Jubilee gardens to be bulldozed simply because Government bodies cannot get together to find a solution.
I am grateful to the Minister for coming recently to look at the site that we support and I am sure that he would agree that all logic and sense point to that being the best site for London Underground. Hon. Members are meant to be working for the interests of the public, and if we cannot find a solution to the problem we will not meet the expectations of those who elected us. I remember a debate when hon. Members on both sides of the House spent hours complaining that their working conditions and other aspects of their lives at Westminster would not be acceptable if the Bill were passed in its original form because of the works in Westminster. London Underground found a way to ensure that the interests of Members of Parliament were not jeopardised, but the people of Waterloo do not have the same ability as Members of Parliament to lobby, pester and throw power punches.
I urge hon. Members to save Jubilee gardens and thus allow the Bill to proceed as quickly as possible. I have great faith in what will happen in the other place. It will examine wider issues than were considered in the Committee. The Bill will return here in a different form. I hope that this House will adopt a sensible way forward so that petitions will not have to be submitted again. I hope, too, that the Minister will say that he intends to sort something out with the Department of the Environment so that the London residuary body cannot threaten us with a form of blackmail. Public money is involved and the London residuary body is a public body.
I shall listen to what the Minister has to say before deciding whether to press the new clause to a Division. The House has the opportunity to prevent a repetition of some of the appalling things that have happened in the Waterloo area. We must preserve this green space for Londoners and show that Members of Parliament can make a difference when common sense and reality demonstrate what is the right use for the site.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), who represents the bulk of the Waterloo area. I have an interest in only a small part of it—Southwark and Bermondsey.
I have two simple and straightforward points to make. First—this is a paradox—the Government believe that it is important for the people of London to walk alongside the river in central London. Tomorrow morning, the Secretary of State for the Environment is coming to my constituency to unveil a plaque to commemorate another part of the Jubilee walkway in London bridge city, just by Tower bridge. Part of the Jubilee walkway passes through Jubilee gardens and goes along that part of the Thames which provides the largest amount of currently available green space adjacent to the river.
In central London—unlike many other European cities —there is very little green space immediately adjacent to the river. One of the great joys of urban life is the conjunction of green space, open space and water. That is why the Serpentine in Hyde park is so popular. Parks are fine, but parks with water are better. A river is wonderful, but a river with adjacent space where it can be enjoyed at leisure is even better.
It would be ridiculous if, due to a set of public policy decisions, the people of London had to suffer an intrusion into the largest pocket of remaining green space in central London that is available for the public to enjoy. To suffer that intrusion for a limited period—although for several years—while the work is done and then to be unable to make the maximum use of that space would be madness. If it is impossible, with all the brains, intelligence, public finance and commitment to the railway line, to reconcile the proper interests of the line and public transport, which I support, with the equally proper interests of the environment for those who live, work and wish to spend their leisure time by the river on the Lambeth-Southwark boundary, just opposite the Palace of Westminster, there is something wrong with this nation's decision-making process.
My second point is linked to the first. In recent years, we have experienced a ridiculous set of events connected with the conjunction of timing of decisions. No better evidence can be found than at Waterloo. We are debating in this House, after which it will go to another place, the timetable for building the Jubilee line—digging holes, taking out the spoil, and so on. At the same time, the London residuary body, which took over the functions of the Greater London council after the Conservative Government decided to abolish it, is planning for the future of county hall. Opposition Members do not agree with its plans.
As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, we believe that county hall should be retained for the government of London. We are convinced that, sooner or later, there will be government of London at regional level. In the meantime, however, another public body has charge of that building. It has tried to obtain approval for a development plan. However, the ridiculous illogicality is that the developer has gone. Therefore this public body is seeking planning approval for a plan for a developer who has disappeared.
Even if we accept the bizarre nature of there being a planning application on behalf of a non-existent developer, what is even more illogical is that we are having a debate about Jubilee gardens into which is intruding the


concern of a non-elected body—the London residuary body—at a time when we do not know what decision will be taken about LRB's planning application for that building. That is madness, too. It is mad that the House of Commons should have to decide what powers to give the promoters—London Underground—when we do not know what the success or failure will be of the latest planning application in relation to LRB's plans for county hall.
I do not know when the Secretary of State will make his decision. A different Secretary of State—the Secretary of State for the Environment—is in charge. What a way to proceed. It is complete nonsense that the planning of London's transport, its use of open space, its buildings and architecture and its public land use cannot be joined together so that logical decisions can be taken. It will be even bigger nonsense if, despite our efforts, decisions about the Jubilee line and Jubilee gardens have to be taken before we know the outcome of the planning application that has gone for decision, after public inquiry, to the Secretary of State in relation to county hall.
We in this House may be unable to alter the fact that we shall have to make a decision before the result of the planning application is known. I suspect that any other option is no longer available to us. However, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall rightly said, hon. Members, who are democratically elected to represent people with very real concerns, look now—another paradox of the system—to the unelected members in the other place to protect them. In the meantime, we must just hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will be able to make his decision about county hall in a way that coincides with the decision-making process in relation to the Jubilee line Bill.
As the hon. Lady said, she and I, her council in Lambeth and mine in Southwark are the representatives of the communities in those boroughs. We want an underground line, but we do not want one if the current proposal means that a muddle will still have to be sorted out. The job of this House is to flag the remaining issues that are still in a muddle and to say to the promoters and to the Government, "For heaven's sake, while trying to regenerate south London by building this useful new line, please do not ruin many other things along its route." One of the most precious things is Jubilee gardens. We must make sure that we do not mess it up for this and future generations.

Mr. Tom Cox: I support the new clause that has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey). Both she and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made the point that all of us with London constituencies—certainly those who represent constituencies in south London, as I do—know how much pleasure Jubilee gardens brings to our constituents and their families. It is a very pleasant area, both during the day and in the evening. We need to preserve such areas. Hon. Members who have been in the House for a while know that, unless we begin to voice our concerns and to receive guarantees about the future of Jubilee gardens, things may happen that neither we nor the people of London would want or support.
8 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall is to be congratulated on moving new clause 1. Subsection (4)—my hon. Friend or the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr.

Thorne) may develop this later—refers to Jubilee gardens not remaining in the possession of, I assume, the developers for "longer than 54 months". That is four and a half years, which is a long time. We are entitled to be told the extent of disruption in the area for four and a half years. Are we right in assuming that workings will continue for seven days a week and, if not on a 24-hour, day-by-day basis, will begin early in the morning and continue until late evening?
What would be the result of such disruption in the area? We already know that Waterloo is a busy area; there is much traffic in the rush hour and throughout the day. How much further disruption would there be as heavy lorries moved the spoil and as other lorries delivered supplies?
There are a number of shops in the area. What will happen to people who are trying to run a business? Have they been consulted and asked for their views? I remember speaking in the House months ago on the development of Victoria station. Hon. Members asked how much consultation there had been, and it became clear that there had been little. People had not been made aware that workings would continue for a long time, which would disrupt business in the area.
I should like to know a little more about the cost of the development. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall referred to county hall. I realise that this is not the time to discuss county hall, but the way in which that proposed development has been handled has been a disgrace, and it has fizzled out into nothing. As my hon. Friend said, the Department of the Environment is more involved in the future of county hall than the Department of Transport, but it is time that Members of Parliament, especially those representing London constituencies, were informed of the position and were allowed, in Government time, to make their views known on the future development of county hall.
I should be interested to hear, if not from the sponsor possibly from the Minister, about the cost not only of compensating prospective developers of county hall but of all the works. Will the costs be borne solely by London Transport, by London Transport and a percentage grant from the Department of Transport or, as we see so often, by a little bit of each, with increased fares that commuters must pay? We are entitled to know something about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall was right to move the new clause. As she said, she spoke not only for her constituents and people living in the area adjacent to Waterloo but for the people of London, who have enjoyed and who wish to continue to enjoy Jubilee gardens. I am delighted to have the opportunity to support her.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) on eloquently putting the case for Jubilee gardens on behalf of her constituents. We are all concerned about open space in London, and the majority of us sympathise with people who must live near the centre and therefore suffer from continuous building works. I know a little about that because, living over the road during the week, I find that, as soon as scaffolding is taken down, more is erected, and banging and crashing starts at 8 am.
We are concerned to ensure, first, that constituents are not inconvenienced any more than necessary and, secondly, that open space is protected. We particularly appreciate the point that the hon. Lady made about metropolitan open land.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall asked about the cost. She rightly said that it would be cheaper for the promoters to use the working space that is closer to county hall. She also said that they would run the risk of incurring considerable extra costs in compensation for the subsequent development of county hall. She said that the cost of that could be between £50 million and £100 million. I have also heard that figure, which I believe to be true. That was one of the main reasons why the Committee that considered the Bill was concerned about the possible additional cost to the project.
The Committee required an undertaking that the area close to county hall be grassed for as long as that land was not required. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, that may be for the duration of the contract—54 months—and the promoters have given the London residuary body an undertaking that the children's playground will be retained. Everybody appreciates the value of that playground and the open space. The hon. Lady's point is taken.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: I did not expect the hon. Gentleman to move on quite so quickly, so I hope that he will accept this brief intervention. I do not think that, in the circumstances that he described, he meant to imply that the London residuary body was obliged to sue. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall that there is no reason to believe that the costs of £50 million or £100 million would accrue.
We are talking about several public authorities. Surely we are trying to balance the interests of the public and the convenience of Londoners and their recreational facilities with the other interests. Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he foresees an absolute risk of this happening, or whether, as my hon. Friend suggested, it could be set aside by the LRB?

Mr. Thorne: If I may, I shall leave that point for the moment, but I promise to return to it.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested that this matter should not be considered before the future of county hall has been determined. The Committee considered that aspect in detail. Most hon. Members would welcome the construction of the Jubilee line, and it would be wrong to delay the work unnecessarily by insisting that no progress was made until a final decison was taken.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to imply that I argued that we should not wait for a decision. I tried to say clearly that, because the Bill has to go to the other place and because we are waiting for a decision by the Secretary of State on another matter, a decision on the planning matter and consideration in detail in the other place could coincide. Before the Bill completes its passage, those two aspects may coincide, and there may be some logic in planning for Jubilee gardens and Waterloo.

Mr. Thorne: That matter is not in my hands. I do not want to imply that the promoters would be happy if the Department did not make a decision before the Bill reached the other place and if work was therefore held up.

I accept that it would be to everyone's advantge to know about the future of county hall before a final decision was taken, but I am afraid that no undertaking can be given.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) voiced concern about the future of Jubilee gardens. We want Jubilee gardens to return as quickly as possible to the important role that it now plays. It has a reputation as an excellent space in the centre of the metropolis, and we all regret the need to disturb it. The Committee listened carefully to the arguments and to the proposed alternatives, but in the circumstances we must look forward to the work being carried out as quickly as possible.
The work will go on around the clock, for five and a half days a week. According to the latest figures, the total cost of the project will be about £1·3 billion. Part of the funding will come from some of those who will benefit from the stations constructed along the route. Negotiations are still taking place. It is difficult to tell the hon. Member for Tooting precisely what the ultimate figure will be, but I assure him that the public Exchequer will do its best to ensure that those who benefit from their property will pay their full share towards the total cost of the project.
I fully accept that county hall is owned by the public at large. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall that, because it is owned by the public, we can play fast and loose with the funds. I am sure that the hon. Lady did not mean to imply that that is what we should do. It is important to try to keep the public cost as low as possible. If we can sensibly arrange construction by preserving for the public as much of their investment as possible, we should do so.
There is no requirement on the LRB to demand between £50 million and £100 million, but we must appreciate that it would be fully entitled to do so and that many people would consider that it was its responsibility to do so if the money were owned by the wider public rather than the passengers who will use that section of the route. The residuary body would have that responsibility, and therefore may be pressed to exercise it.

Miss Hoey: Is not LRB under an obligation to dispose of county hall at what is quoted as the best price that may be "practicably" obtained? I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to the question of who does the cost-benefit analysis? Who is weighing up the costs of the loss of Jubilee gardens over that period?

Mr. Thorne: The total costs involved in the project were taken into account over three days by the Committee. Arguments were made, and the Committee went into the matter in great detail. It unanimously agreed that the right solution was that which had been proposed, with an undertaking that the promoters should do their best to provide an alternative to Jubilee gardens for the benefit of the local community. The costings and the detailed cost-benefit analysis were considered in detail over three days. It was an in-depth study. It would not be right for us again to go over the ground that the Committee covered, with the benefit of counsel's opinion. For that reason, the promoters hope that they can rely on the House to maintain the Committee's opinion and to reject the new clause.

Ms. Ruddock: I find it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. There is a legalistic argument about how, theoretically, the LRB may forgo some moneys because of these works which may, theoretically, affect some sale. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss. Hoey) said, there is no sale—there is no buyer, and no planning permission has been given. It is a theoretical and legalistic argument.
It will be clear to Londoners and to those who are used to using Jubilee gardens, walking by the river and enjoying those amenities, what the loss will be if plans go ahead. One is not comparing like with like. The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the public at large own the area. They will quickly and directly see the loss they will suffer if they lose those amenities. I do not believe that they see the loss that they "may" theoretically suffer by forgoing the moneys that "may" be made on the site if it "were" sold to a developer, who does not exist.

Mr. Thorne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments, but she is misguided in believing that the residents in the area will not have the benefit of their riverside walk. They will still have a riverside walk on the remaining land, although it will not be as large a piece. Whichever half is taken, they will still have the same problem—they will still have less than they have now. They will still, nevertheless, have a garden which has a similar proximity to the river as the present area. On that basis, the House should allow the promoters to go ahead.

Miss Hoey: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. It is not fair or right to talk about halves. We are talking about a much smaller part of the area that is predominantly not grassed over, which is seen by London Underground as offering the most sensible use of the land. The other part that London Underground will be forced to use by the non-elected LRB is a substantial chunk which takes the heart out of Jubilee gardens. I should be happy for the promoter of the Bill to walk around the gardens with me next week as the Minister did, because we are talking about the heart of Jubilee gardens, not half.

Mr. Thorne: I am sorry, but I am looking at the map, and the hatched area is larger than that which is left unhatched. Therefore, I do not understand the hon. Lady's argument. Moreover, neither of the areas go down to the river frontage, so I do not understand the argument about people being unable to gain access to the river. Neither of the areas goes right up to the river wall; both are set back, at about 20m, I would guess. Therefore, uninhibited passage along the river frontage will still be available. In Committee, the promoters gave an undertaking that they would grass the area if it was not required, so I do not understand the problem.
The Committee discussed the issue in detail, so I ask the House to reject the new clause and to accept the Committee's proposals.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I shall make one or two points on behalf of the Departments of the Environment and of Transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) has again ably and comprehensively sought to answer the issues that have been raised, and what I have to say is in addition to his comments.
I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) will support the Bill. This is not a party

political issue, and there is a broad consensus among all parties, including the Liberal Democrats, that the Bill will be good for London. I appreciate that there will be inconvenience to the residents of Vauxhall. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said, there is no question but that there will be four and a half years of inconvenience—as fairly sketched by the hon. Member for Vauxhall—on the northern part of the site and possibly another two years on the southern portion of the site if a car park is dug. Either way, there is inconvenience and that is part of the loss of amenity which the hon. Lady said should be weighed. I shall seek to answer that point on behalf of the Government.
As part of the loss my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South fairly cited the £1 million additional cost of tunnelling from a site further away than the running tunnel. In addition, there would be some loss of amenity.
On the gain side, there is clearly a risk that, if county hall is sold for a use that involves a car park, the potential loss to London Regional Transport could be substantial. The risks have been set out in Committee, and it cannot be denied that there is a risk that the taxpayer would have to find a substantial sum of money. That is the distinction. The taxpayer funds London Regional Transport and the underground, but the charge payer—as my hon. Friend rightly said—is the beneficiary from the sale of county hall by the London residuary body. Therefore, although both are part of the public sector—I say this as the Minister accountable to the House for the funding of London Regional Transport—the taxpayer would end up compensating the charge payers of London for the loss of receipts because the car park could not be constructed.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned two issues on which I can perhaps reassure her on behalf of the Government. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for inner cities and I have a joint responsibility for ensuring that two things happen, and I give the hon. Lady these assurances. First, I have seen the children's playground, and I assure her that the Government will ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to move the playground and to find a new site and that the cost of so moving it will be met so that that amenity will not be lost.
Secondly, on removal of soil, the London Residuary Body and London Regional Transport will work together to ensure that the streets of Vauxhall and of south London in general will, if at all possible, not be burdened with heavy goods vehicles transporting soil from the excavation for the car park and that the soil will be disposed of by barge using the same system as London Regional Transport. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept those assurances in the spirit in which they are offered.

Miss Hoey: I welcome the assurances about the children's playground. To be fair to London Underground, it has been extremely helpful in discussing the spoil and how to minimise it. However, I am disappointed that the Minister has been unable to give me the feeling that anyone has been sent to find a way around the financial difficulty of two public bodies, given that the Minister accepts—although he did not say so, it would have been nice if he had—that the best site was that which we wanted. I should have liked the Minister to say that he would sit around a table with officials from the


Department of the Environment to find a way around the problem. The cost-benefit analysis has not been carried out satisfactorily.
The sponsor of the Bill talked a lot about the Committee. I spent some time in that Committee and I genuinely wish—perhaps I should not say this—that the detail and depth mentioned by the sponsor had in fact emerged. However, I do not feel that I could honestly say to my constituents that the members of the Committee —I intend no insult to them—examined the cost as I should have liked them to.
The legal opinion given to the Waterloo Community Development Group was exactly the opposite of that given by the Committee. More work needs to be done in the House of Lords or "another place", as I believe that it is called. In view of the Minister's assurance on the other issue I shall not press the motion to a vote now, but I hope that, when the Bill returns from another place, we shall have found a way forward which will be in the interests of the people of London as a whole, not just those of my constituents. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 2

CONTROL OF NOISE

'In the execution of any works, the Company shall ensure that noise levels associated with construction during the period from dawn until dusk do not exceed 35 decibels, and that outside this time noise levels do not exceed 30 decibels.'. —[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We are moving gradually along the track. The new clause is principally about noise. If there is one issue that concerns all my constituents—I remind the House if it will be tolerant that Southwark and Bermondsey contains the largest portion of the line, so many of my constituents are affected—it is the prospect of the noise that the construction works especially will produce. There is the secondary issue of the noise when the trains run.
This is an admission that Back-Benchers often have to make, but I accept that the new clause could have been better drafted and I apologise to the House. It deals expressly with construction, although other issues could have been covered to make it clear that my constituents are also concerned about the operational noise once the line has been built.
The new clause seeks to minimise the noise to 35 decibels between dawn and dusk. I propose a lower level at night time, when noise is heard more clearly. The argument for a lower limit at night is generally accepted. The House has had an unusual year in that we have had two debates about the problems of noise, arising on a private Member's motion and as an Adjournment debate. I say with gratitude that it is good to know that the Government take this issue seriously. There are many forms of noise nuisance and noise pollution. When I spoke briefly during the general debate on a private Member's motion, among other things I alluded to the noise caused by railways, and especially by underground railways, as a sort of trailer to today's debate.
8.30 pm
I should like to make some general points first and then site-specify them, because it is the site-specific concerns that have prompted the new clause. I shall be grateful for two responses; the first being for the promoters and the Government to say, "We understand your concerns and will seek to ensure that they are allayed." The second response should highlight the most vulnerable parts of the line in terms of where people will be most affected—

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Although my constituents welcome the fact that the Jubilee line will run through the constituency with a station at Canary Wharf, we are concerned because we have had so much disturbance, noise pollution and discomfort already. I hope that while the works are in progress the lives of the people in the neighbourhood will not deteriorate further. I refer not only to the future noise of underground trains and to the noise of the building works and to the lorries that will take away the spoil. The interests of the community must be taken into account. It has suffered enough.

Mr. Hughes: I agree with the hon. Lady. I know that part of her constituency well. No area has been uprooted, built upon, rumbled over and diverted in recent years to the same extent. To be fair to the hon. Lady's constituents, I believe that they have had an even worse experience than my constituents. Those of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have been in the same predicament. Our constituents need protection against a further six years of noise, dust, dirt, disruption and traffic diversions. I am sure that that is understood.
For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that all of us support the idea of the line. However, during the early stages of the Bill's passage, it appeared that the House was concentrating more on the disruption to Parliament square, where nobody lives, than on that in the areas of London where many people live, such as Southwark, Bermondsey, the Isle of Dogs and Newham. We should have been most concerned about those areas. However, be that as it may, it is water under the bridge—or it might be more appropriate to say that it is water underground.
I turn now to the Government's White Paper on the environment. I appreciate that that is not the responsibility of the Minister for Public Transport, but my questions are relevant to this debate. I should be grateful to know whether two of the proposals in the White Paper will come to the aid of the people. My first point relates to page 25 of the summary document, which refers to the proposal
to extend noise insulation schemes to limit exposure to noise from new rail lines.
I hope that, where appropriate, such schemes will be extended to those suffering noise pollution from underground railway lines.
Secondly, I refer to the proposal to make it easier for local authorities to set up noise control zones and to encourage consistent local authority practice on noise. Progress on both proposals would be welcome and helpful.
I understand that, in general terms, the remedy—in so far as there is one—can be found in the Control of Pollution Act 1974, although I have been advised by the Library that there is no precedent. Local authorities can serve notices on how works can be carried out in the best and most practicable manner to minimise noise. I know that my local authority of Southwark, and others, are conscious of their responsibilities and that they have been


working hard to ensure that the interests of their residents are looked after. As on previous occasions, I pay tribute to those in the development division of Southwark council who have been assiduous in looking after the interests of my constituents.
I trust that the British standard code of practice will be adhered to. I understand that in the worst circumstances there is also the remote opportunity of selling one's property and thus, in a sense, getting some compensation. However, most people do not want to sell their property. They want to stay in it and live there and to have their environment improved instead of being forced out because of the noise pollution.
On the site-specific details, I am talking principally about the area from London bridge to the river at the end of Surrey docks downtown, beyond the Canada Water estate, by Durands wharf, although the first sector that directly concerns my constituency is that from Waterloo to London bridge. I am grateful for the fact that the problem has been recognised. Page 14 of the environmental assessment states:
Many properties close to the proposed sites already experience day time average noise levels in the 70 to 75 decibel range but special noise problems could arise close to the sites"—
which are then identified as Joan street, the Cut, Newer street, Old Jamaica road, Major road, John Roll way, Canada Water and Durands Wharf, and one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), at Blackwall way—
because of the need for 24 hour working. Special precautions may be needed at these sites to prevent night-time disturbance.
On advice, I have five proposals about the best ways of meeting the concerns that have been raised. The first is that there should be more stringent noise and vibration standards at the many work sites that are located in sensitive residential areas. The environmental assessment makes quite a good read if one is interested in the detailed topography, population breakdown and history of south London. The assessment is helpful and sets out the risk areas in terms of the noise and vibration that will result from the post-construction operation.
Just to show how proper it is that we are concerned about this matter, I shall summarise what the assessment states about the first area. Approximately 120 residential buildings have been estimated to lie within the corridor in this section, including Roupell street and Ospringe house, Wootton street in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Scoresby street, Union street, Whites Ground estate and Druid street in Southwark. One church will also be affected—the Most Precious Blood—as will part of Guy's hospital.
The environmental assessment then makes it clear that
in view of the potential for noise dsisturbance above the tunnel, it is recommended that a programme be set up to design a resilient track form to reduce noise to acceptable levels.
The promoters have therefore identified the fact that action needs to be taken and have given a list of the exact locations.
I turn now to the next section and repeat that I am dealing with operational noise, not with the noise before the works have been completed. It is estimated that approximately 300 residential buildings, some of which will house many people, lie within that corridor, including those in Druid street, Sweeney crescent, the Arnold estate, Old Jamaica road, Marine street, Keetons road, Perryn

road, Drummond road, the Kirby estate, Neptune street and Renforth street. St. James's church will also be affected. It has recently been beautifully restored with the help of English Heritage and the London Docklands development corporation. The proposal will also involve St. James's school in Bermondsey, of which I have just become a governor, and St. Olave's hospital, which is the subject of a redevelopment proposal. It suffered an arson attack last night, although happily nobody was injured and the fire was put out by the local fire brigade. Again, it is proposed that a programme should be set up to design a resilient track form to reduce noise to acceptable levels.
Many people are affected. The Minister for Public Transport has been assiduous in acquainting himself with the details of the area and he knows that we are talking about blocks of council flats, pubs, schools and play areas. The report says:
Background daytime noise levels at Old Jamaica Road are currently about 51 dB(A). During construction, noise levels at Giles House will be typically 62–71 dB(A), possibly reaching 77 d(B)A. This is expected to cause annoyance in comparison with existing conditions and mitigation measures to reduce construction noise will be required to prevent both daytime and night-time disturbance. Noise levels at St. James's School will also result in disturbance unless such measures are taken.
The report makes similar comments about Canada Water and the Canada estate, Ben Smith way—it says that night-time working should be avoided, if possible—and Southwark park, here mentioning Rotherhithe Free Church.
I apologise to the House for setting out those areas, but I want to ensure that the places where people will be affected are noted. At the Surrey Docks end of the line, 55 buildings within the corridor—Holyoak court, Rotherhithe street, Timbrell road and Downtown road —will be affected. The report says that in Durands wharf
current daytime noise levels in the area are relatively low … construction noise levels of 64–72 dB(A), possibly reaching 79 dB(A) …would cause annoyance at the nearest dwellings. Special measures may therefore be required to reduce noise, particularly at night and during piling.
The prospective consequences are substantial and therefore the most stringent noise and vibration standards are required at the work site. It appears—I may be wrong and I am simply being inquisitive—that undertakings were given by the promoters in November last year that the code of construction would be based on local circumstances after background noise surveys, which would determine the noise abatement activity. I understand that there will now be uniform standards rather than better and tighter standards in the areas that I have identified as having problems. If that is so, it is not good enough. Where people live and work, and where there are schools and churches, close to the site standards must be tougher. All those areas should be protected during the work, and resilient track should be laid.
Working hours must respect local sensitivities. No work should be done except between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm on weekdays. I heard the reply of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) when he said that five and a half days a week would be worked. In some ways, Saturday mornings are acceptable, because it is better to have the work concentrated for a shorter time. However, we do not want a repetition of the problems caused when


construction work on Surrey quays was carried out around the clock and those living nearby were permanently aggravated.
The criteria for London Underground's providing double glazing to protect residents from noise must not be set so high that they never qualify. The Minister for Public Transport replied to a debate on the Channel tunnel recently when the Planning and Compensation Bill was being debated and the triggering of the protection of the law in terms of compensation was discussed. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) and other colleagues have had a persistent interest in that subject. We must ensure that we are not creating exceptional opportunities for double glazing, of which no one can avail themselves. If people are to be blighted by noise that could be mitigated or removed by double glazing, they must be entitled to it. I wish to know on behalf of my constituents on the Canada estate that they will be protected. They have been disrupted enough already.

Mr. John Bowis: At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that his new clause was defective because it did not deal with both the operation and the construction of the line. His comments on double glazing appear to apply to the effects on the neighbourhood of the line once it is built. I understand that, but will the hon. Gentleman also explain the decibel levels in the new clause, because they seem quite low? I do not see how the same decibels can apply to construction as to operation.

Mr. Hughes: I was about to deal with decibel levels, so the hon. Gentleman's intervention was timely. I apologise to the House, but the new clause is a probing rather than a concrete one. A better defined new clause could have dealt separately with construction and operation noise. Those living in local blocks, will suffer a higher level of noise during construction than during operation. The real debate among accoustic engineers is between the 40 decibel lobby and the 35 decibel lobby. It is accepted—not only in this country but elsewhere—that the lowest decibel level acceptable is 35.
I am no expert, but if environmental protection officers or experts aware of the debate in London Underground were here, I guess they would tell us that the present ambient noise level in the Chamber is now about 50 or 55 decibels. Decibel noises are quite high and low decibel levels require extremely quiet periods. The 35 to 40 decibel apply to operation noise once the line is built and the difference is between noticeable noise—noises that one hears at night when the world is relatively quiet—and the noise that one does not hear.
We should have the best standards that are achievable as we have the technology to achieve them. We must reduce noise levels to 35 decibels when the track will be under people's homes, churches and other buildings. It is accepted that there will be 35 decibel limits under sensitive buildings. I accept that resilient track is more expensive, but it will benefit not only buildings like Henry Wood hall in Trinity Church square in my constituency, where there is a rehearsal and recording studio, or the laboratories in Guy's hospital, which have sensitive equipment, but

equally residential accommodation. I do not argue that noise should be reduced below a level at which people do not notice it anyway, but only where that noise constitutes a problem. Although 35 decibels is quiet, it is noticeable, so that should be the operational limit.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) is right to say that the limit for construction is higher and the environmental assessment made that clear. In that case, the site-specific protection measures should include the ability to have double glazing as early as possible because it will be more useful to protect against the noise of construction than of operation. Double glazing will be needed in places such as the Isle of Dogs, the Royal docks or Surrey docks to stop not only the dust but the noise of the piling, the cranes and the lorries taking away the loads. Therefore, I hope that double glazing will be installed this winter or next spring rather than in six years' time.
There was evidence in Committee that what is called "floating slab track" would substantially reduce the noise. That track is far more noise-resilient, and could be used in sensitive locations. I hope that, as with my plea for double glazing, the definition of where such track will be used is not so limited as to be hardly ever used and that it can be used more frequently.
In terms of noise, it is better environmentally to have top-down construction than bottom-up construction. The original idea was to use the cut-and-cover technique, by which the hole is dug and then covered over. I understand that the preferred method of construction—and it is logical—is to build the top and then to work underneath so that the noise does not then rise up through an empty space. I hope that there will be top-down construction for all the works at Canada Water station. The greatest concern expressed to me and, no doubt, to hon. Members who were members of the Committee, was by the residents of the Canada estate. They have had a hard time already. They are right on the edge of the proposal for large works. Above all, they hope that construction can be done in a way that minimises the noise disturbance to them.
I am grateful for the opportunity to set out various concerns. Noise will be the principal concern of people living along the route in Southwark and Bermondsey. They are concerned about dust and other matters as well, but if we could ensure that they are not affected by noise or if we keep the noise to a minimum, the line will run into far less trouble as it is being built. If they are not given that protection, sadly, I anticipate that those responsible for building the line will face a hard time from equally noisy constituents and residents—and deservedly noisy ones, because their environment must be looked after once the line is built.

Mr. Cox: It is a pleasure to speak in support of the new clause. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) cited the levels of noise as 35 decibels from dawn to dusk and as 30 decibels outside those hours. In reply to questions by myself and other hon. Members, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) properly told us that the project would involve round-the-clock working —24 hours a day—for five and a half days a week. That means construction work in all forms—not only the work on site, but the movements involved in supplying materials and in the removal of soil and other material from the site.
At present, a development is taking place on the south side of Vauxhall bridge. I travel along that road every day as I come to the House. I repeatedly see huge lorries either


entering or leaving the site, either delivering or having delivered materials. That causes the most enormous traffic hold-ups.
I make that point because the Minister said that he hoped that as much as possible of the site working movements, whether including spoil from the site or the supply of materials, would be by barge. I welcome that. However, in the case of the development on the south side of Vauxhall bridge, one sees few barge movements. I agree that that is a smaller development than the one proposed in the Bill, but hon. Members, and especially those whom we try to represent, would have greater confidence if the Minister or the hon. Member for Ilford, South, the sponsor of the Bill, were able to say that the provisions of the new clause would be incorporated into any contracts awarded.
We know that, with all the good will in the world, the contracts between London Transport and the building companies—from what we have heard this evening, some movement for the development could be done by barge along the River Thames—will lead to a great volume of lorries. We have not been told about the estimated number of lorries travelling to and from the site in the course of the round-the-clock working. One can assume only that the number of lorries would be substantial and would bring increasing noise. We all know that the lorries would be the largest that are allowed to use our roads and that there would not be one or two, but 100 or more a day. They would travel through residential areas, adding to the noise and pollution, and causing great environmental damage.
I am sure that all of us warmly welcome the Minister's comments on barges, but many of us would like the assurance that, for those awarded the contracts, there should he written into the contract a clear obligation that they should have to—not just be expected to—keep to the suggested noise levels in the course of the contract. If that happened, the problem would be eased.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has outlined the problems that would exist in the form of continual noise for many of the residents who live in the area. As Members of Parliament for London, we have the right to use this opportunity to bring home forcefully to the Minister and to the sponsor the issues that must be considered and agreed on now. Later on, it will be far too late. That is why action should be taken now.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that his suggestion could be taken one step further? My hon. Friend and the promoters have spoken about the removal of spoil by barge, which is an historic method in the construction of London tubes. In the construction of Canary wharf, a wharf was set aside, downstream from which suppliers collected materials and took them to the site by barge. The construction of an underground railway calls for large quantities of cement and sections of tunnel, and even in the cause of economy the promoters might care to consider that sort of arrangement.

Mr. Cox: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable point. I hope that the Minister and the promoters will act upon it.
The work will last for four and a half years. If we do not seek to include in the contract the arrangements that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr.

Spearing) have suggested, people living in the vicinity of the work will suffer anguish for a long time. Our duty is to try to see that such suffering is avoided.

9 pm

Mr. Thorne: All hon. Members share the concern about noise expressed by the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox). Noise is one of the problems that people have to face nowadays, but frequently we are asked to put up with far too much of it. It is right that we should do all that we can to mitigate the problem.
If the amendment is accepted, we shall have no Jubilee line at all, because the proposal that the work should generate fewer than 35 decibels during the day and fewer than 30 at night would mean that no work at all could be carried out. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey seems to have been badly advised on his figures. He may be confusing the noise levels in his amendment with the levels that are acceptable on the surface from underground working.
The hon. Gentleman said that his amendment was intended to be probing and that it provided an opportunity to discuss the matter of noise. The noise level experienced in a residential street in inner London is about 50 decibels, while in Parliament square the level reaches 70 decibels. Those are logarithmic scales, from which it will be realised that 70 decibels is a much higher noise level than double 35 decibels. A noise level of 35 decibels is what someone standing in the middle of Hyde park late at night would expect to hear from traffic some distance away.
The amendment must be seen purely and simply as a probing amendment and not one that the hon. Gentleman would wish to press to a vote, because, if accepted, it would not allow the railway to be constructed, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman wants that. I think that he is quite enthusiastic about the railway. The normal expectation is a limit of 75 decibels during the day, 65 in the evening and 55 at night.
The hon. Member for Tooting spoke about the duration of the work. This is a major construction, and if work were limited to 12 hours a day from 8 am to 8 pm over five and a half days a week, the project would take much longer than four and a half years to complete and, of course, that would have its disadvantages. A vast amount of the work will take place underground. The underground work in extending the docklands light railway from Tower gateway to Bank has not been causing annoyance and disturbance to people on the surface, and that work has been continuing day and night.
The construction near the surface of, for example, Canada Water station would be carried out over six days a week from 7 am to 7 pm. Work would not be carried out for 24 hours a day, although such a programme would be used for the tunnels. Clearly, that is a different operation and would take much longer. Double glazing has been mentioned.

Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the hours of work and the noise bans within those hours. Will he define what he means by daytime, evening and night-time? He has said that there would be different noise levels, but he has not said at what point one would move from one level to the next.

Mr. Thorne: The daytime workings at Canada Water will be between 7 am and 7 pm. I am not absolutely certain, but I would assume that night-time surface working would be in the hours outside those hours. I would have to take further advice on what is meant by evening working, and I will let the hon. Lady know the answer.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I think that I am right in saying that the proposal that the Canada Water works be carried out on a six-day rather than a five-and-a-half-day week has not been accepted or agreed, local residents, their representatives or the local authority. I doubt whether they would find acceptable the proposal that the work immediately adjacent to the Canada estate be done on that timetable. I hope that that will be reconsidered.

Mr. Thorne: To the best of my knowledge, these are the hours that were given in Committee, but I am sure that this will be further explored in another place when it goes through the Committee there. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific points to make, I am sure that they will be taken account of there.
There is a universal policy for double glazing, based on decibel requirement, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said. He was concerned that a high decibel count had to be achieved, but each site will be taken on its merits, and there will be some grounds for negotiations. The further consideration of the Bill in the other place will be the right time to raise that point, particularly where it concerns residential properties. Further information can be obtained on that matter at that time.

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman cannot deal with my next point now, perhaps he will deal with it in another way. As I understood it, the original intention was that the site-specific areas—the areas with the greatest risk of noise nuisance—would have higher standards imposed during construction, but as I understand it now, a general standard will be imposed along the route. Has there been a resiling from the original position? If so, will that too be considered, so that we can get back to the original proposal that the more work, the better the protection?

Mr. Thorne: I do not believe that there has been any resiling, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that point so that, before the Bill reaches the other place, he will be fully aware of the situation.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the extra cost involved in reducing the decibel level of noise from underground from 35 to 30 decibels. Such a reduction is already required in sensitive areas. We have to be reasonable and acknowledge that it is twice as expensive to construct track that reduces the decibel level to 30 from 35. Therefore, it is not appropriate to do this in all places. Noise is not considered to be a difficult problem generally and in many places, the depth of the tunnels will solve the problem anyway.

Mr. Hughes: I am sorry to intervene again, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to deal with all these points. I asked about cut-and-cover as opposed to top-down construction of stations. If the hon. Gentleman can answer now, I shall be grateful, but if not, I should like to know that the construction of stations such as Bermondsey or Canada Water will be by top-down rather than cut-and-cover, as that is environmentally accepted to be the far quieter option.

Mr. Thorne: I accept that it is quieter. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer, but I will write to him.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) asked about the number of vehicles that are likely to go around. There will be 50 a day at the Parliament street site, which is not as many as the hon. Gentleman feared. As that is the largest and most difficult of the sites, it seems that any problems should be scaled down considerably.
I trust that the new clause can be regarded as a probing motion and that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will withdraw it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The new clause has suffered from being compacted, and I take full responsibility for that. Construction should have been separate from noise levels in the course of operation. The decibel levels in the new clause are operational options and do not relate to construction. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is right: even in a perfect world, it would not be possible to relate the decibels that are set out in the clause to construction. None the less, the issue is germane, and the debate has been useful. I am sure that its importance will have been registered and that those in another place will take up the matter.
Originally, we were told that there would be disruption on site for a year. We are told now that there will be disruption for four years. That is four years at Ben Smith way, four years at Downtown road and four years at Culling road. Given the number of decibels, that is a long time. The issue needs to be considered, and in the hope that it will be, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

POWER TO MAKE WORKS

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 22, at end insert—
'(3A) Before completion of Work No. 3A, the promoters shall ensure that any station which may be constructed at Canning Town shall provide the most convenient interchange obtainable between the Jubilee Line and the existing lines of the Docklands Light Railway and the British Railways Board.'.
The words "existing lines" are technically correct now because the lines have been laid, but no docklands light railway trains yet run.
Probing amendments are in fashion this evening, and this is no exception. Amendment No. 4 has not been selected, but I think that it would be in order to quote it as it expands the intention behind amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 4 states that the station
shall provide optimum convenience of interchange for passengers, as may be obtained within the physical and statutory limitations of the work, and which may incorporate necessary arrangements or agreements for sharing, leasing or exchange of land, track or other facilities".
I put that on the record because it could conceivably add a solution to a somewhat knotty problem.
I do not expect the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) to reach a verdict on the proposition that I am putting before the House or to respond in detail this evening, except on matters of fact and preliminary comment. I merely ask him to consider the case that I shall make on behalf of the people of Newham and Beckton especially, as well as on behalf of future travellers on any of the three lines involved. I say that, too, to the Minister


for Public Transport who is gracing our proceedings this evening. In answer to a question, he stated that he was not yet persuaded of the need for extra expenditure for an interchange at Canning Town. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his customary courtesy. His reply shows that his mind is still open. I must thank the hon. Gentleman also for his courtesy in visiting several sites. He must think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) and I have been haunting him for the past few weeks. As he will know, however, many transport investments in the areas we represent are causing concern.
Canning Town is a nodal part of east London, and it is no accident that that is so. It is the lowest bridging point of the River Lea. On the east-west alignment we have the continuation of the well-known artery of Commercial road, the A13, which bifurcates at Canning Town, one route proceeding to Barking while the other is a dual carriageway to Tilbury. North and south there is a 19th-century railway that once had four tracks but is now to be used by the Jubilee line, too. Ten years ago there was no electrification there, but now, fortunately, the British Rail lines have been electrified, thanks to a grant from the Greater London council before that body was terminated. The docklands light railway and the Jubilee line come that way, too, so we shall have three high-capacity urban railway lines as well as important bus interchanges, with a bus station planned next to those important stations.
9.15 pm
Ironically, the instruction to the Committee about the regeneration of the area happens to be relevant to the site of the proposed station. The station will be next to the Thames ironworks, where the well-known warship Warrior—now, happily, preserved at Portsmouth—was built, as were dreadnoughts at the turn of the century.
Unfortunately, some of the new buildings such as the booking office and the adjacent bus station will require the demolition of one of the last remaining engineering works in the area—Messrs. J. and J. Downey. I place it on the record that the defects in our procedures led to Mr. Downey's being presented with an estimate of £70,000 for pursuing a petition that he had laid at the Committee stage—I have seen the letter. I pointed out to him that the work could be done for less—but who, for the sake of preserving his business, would not want what he considered the best representation available?
I realise that proposals before the House for changing our procedures on private Bills might mean public inquiries for railway Bills. That would be an improvement, provided that Parliament had the last word. I am not keen on giving any Secretary of State, even the most enlightened, the final power of decision on matters that, as tonight's debate shows, could be discussed and in the end decided by a Committee of one of the Houses of Parliament.
Canning Town station is not only a nodal point—for the first few years at least it will be an important interchange serving the royal docks area. That area will be served by the British Rail line that I mentioned—the north London link to north Woolwich—and the docklands light railway to Beckton, which will serve a large area of housing as well as the north sides of the Victoria and Albert docks.
If people are coming to that area from the Jubilee line, as many of them will, they will have to change at Canning Town. Unlike the well-known arrangements for changing

trains at Mile End, for instance, where one can walk across the platform to catch another train going in the same direction, the dominant flows at Canning Town station —at least in the early stages—will mean catching a train going in the opposite direction. As well as that unusual feature, the restraints caused by the physical nature of the area mean that the ideal solution—a transposition of the tracks—would be very expensive, if not impossible.
Unfortunately, in my view and in that of the London borough of Newham, the promoters' plans for the station are defective. The British Rail station would be left about 300 m north of the proposed docklands light railway and Jubilee line station, and the two stations would be connected by a subway running under not only a flyover but slip roads some eight traffic lanes wide. No subway is to the liking of interchange passengers, and this one is especially disliked. The journey will not only involve going along a narrow subway—even if it were widened a little, it would still be narrow—but going up or down a number of stairways. In other words, for most people, it will be a human assault course.

Ms. Gordon: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the question of the subway. As he may realise, many women are very much afraid of using such subways, especially given the poor manning of railway stations that we are witnessing these days. Some years ago, I taught in a school on Hendon way—right on the dual carriageway. There was an underpass leading to the school, which was certainly much shorter than the proposed tunnel, but there were a number of cases of muggings, flashers and so on. In the end, the police came to the school and warned parents and children to go considerably further down the road to the traffic lights—a long walk with small children—and not to use the underpass because it was unsafe and a policeman could not be stationed there all the time. The safety of passengers using such underpasses should be taken into account before any such proposal is envisaged.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has given a graphic example of what many London women know. For such an underpass to be incorporated afresh into what is to be virtually a new station—new, if we have our way as to where the platforms will be—would be a retrograde step on which hon. Members who might otherwise support the provisions should consult their wives and families.
We are talking not only about gender but about people who are disabled or elderly, people with luggage, and women with young children and pushchairs. I am riot saying that we can do without steps and escalators altogether, as the House will see. Nevertheless, one wishes to minimise such difficulties where that is physically possible. In relation to the position of the two stations in question, such disadvantages will be built in. That is certainly not good enough for Canning Town, and. I imagine that it will not be tolerated in Westminster in relation to one or two other stations that are to be built.
The problem is compounded because, at present, the joint docklands light railway and Jubilee line platforms will be alongside each other, with no crossing of the tracks. If the platforms were built on a double deck, instead of going up and down two stairways or two escalators, one would have to negotiate only one stairway or one escalator at the dominant interchanges.
It is clear that there is no ideal solution in respect of the proposed site, but there is certainly a better solution than the one proposed—namely, a double-decker station, with one of the lines above the other, and with escalators between the platforms to give the maximum facility for interchange. If the British Rail line were alongside, with the island platform lay-out, we should avoid the long trek to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar and I have referred.
That was recognised on day 16 of the Committee's sittings. Mr. Bayliss, a renowned transport planner, was brought in to give evidence for the promoters. I have known Mr. Bayliss for many years. He was with the GLC for many years and we are glad to see that, in the last birthday honours list, he received the OBE. He admitted that the arrangements proposed by the promoters were less than perfect and agreed that the borough's proposals would be "easier for passengers".
What I did not realise until relatively recently was the agreed volume of passengers involved. We all know from our own experience that the number of people using subways and crossing from platform to platform at integrated stations is considerable. I understand that the promoters and the borough of Newham have arrived at an agreed estimate of the likely number of passengers interchanging between the docklands light railway and the Jubilee line—about 6,000 per hour at peak periods, I am told.
I suspect that that figure may be what is envisaged for the turn of the century or a bit later. But we must bear in mind the fact that we are building not just for the beginning of the century but well beyond. I suspect that the figure may therefore increase. The figure relating to the interchange between the British Rail line and one of the other two lines is at present much lower, but it, too, could increase considerably if the docklands development goes ahead. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will probably agree with the general estimate that the interchange could involve up to 10,250 boarding movements per hour.
I understand that the promoters and the petitioner—the London borough of Newham—have gone further in their agreement. Those of us who have observed road construction, and transport planning and economics, know something of cost benefit analysis. I confess that I have been critical of cost benefit analysis in the past, and I still do not adopt such methods. The idea is that, if progress is X mph faster or there are so many more cars on the road, a certain amount of time is deemed to have been saved. The next step is to cost the figures; eventually, a sum is arrived at that favours the construction of the road. The process is ingenious and, up to a point, legitimate.
I understand that that process has been applied to the subway that we are discussing, and to the two sets of stairs. Apparently, an agreement between the promoters and the petitioners provides that, over a period, the time saved by the borough's plans—as opposed to those of the promoters—will lead to a saving of £1·8 million. Capitalised, that will apparently amount to £20 million over the borrowing period, or whatever period is usually used for such calculations.
I stress that I do not use such calculations myself; but, if they are to be adopted by the promoters and the

borough, so be it. A strong case seems to have been advanced from the borough's point of view. The extra cost, for a proper station, will be about £8·2 million more than the existing estimates. I say "about" because it could be a bit less, and I suppose that it could be a bit more.
That sounds a huge sum, and indeed it is; but it is additional to the £31 million cost of the construction of the length of railway reaching from the end of the tunnel—where it comes up from the Greenwich peninsula under the Thames—some way towards West Ham to the north. We are talking about an increase of roughly 25 per cent. in the cost of the whole length, including that of the probably quite complex civil engineering works that will be necessary to construct the new subway under the elevated station.
That is a fairly strong case in itself. Given that the work is part of a huge project, the mind boggles at the additional sums that will be spent in Parliament square on, for instance, the engineering works that will be needed for the Waterloo interchange involving the existing railways. I asked the promoters whether they could give me an idea of the cost of other stations, but, understandably, they were unable to do so. I do not complain about that, because I know that contracts and commercial confidentiality are involved.
Hon. Members may not know about the other investment being put into other modes of transport. I do not underestimate the importance of the station that we are discussing. I do not vouch for the correctness of this information, although I believe that it is more or less correct: I understand that, when it is completed, the capacity of the docklands light railway will be about 10,000 people per hour. The capacity of the Jubilee line, at its maximum, will be about 20,000, and that of British Rail will be 2,500, or perhaps a bit more with luck. That means that up to 30,000 people an hour could be passing through the station, perhaps more in the next century.
Once the trains are running, it will not be possible—or, at any rate, it will be very expensive—to make changes which might be considered urgent in 50 years' time. I refer to the kind of complaints made about the Central line and others that were built around the turn of the century.
Interchange is not the sole prerogative of public transport although we always think in those terms. Every time we jump into a car and reach a major intersection or roundabout, we are at an interchange. That is true whether one is on two feet, four tyres, or two tyres.
9.30 pm
I mentioned earlier the other investment being made in the area. Within one mile of the site of the Canning Town underground station and bus interchange, a number of remarkable works are under way. On the A13, there is the intersection with Prince Regent's lane, where, happily, there is at last to be an underpass. Consultations have improved the design and perhaps the construction of that development, which I understand will cost around £45 million.
The Canning Town flyover is to be widened, and the works associated with that important river crossing, according to a borough estimate—I understand that we do not yet have a final figure from the Department, probably because surveys are still being made—will cost at least £20 million. That work is immediately adjacent to the station. The Leamouth interchange with Abbots road and Leamouth road, which is currently the location of interim


works, will eventually cost £8 million. That work will comprise just a few slip roads and other roads close to the new station.
Also under construction is a new tunnel and underpass bang through the middle of what was the East India dock. A feature of that work is a listed wall, which will remain above the tunnel—and the cost of that will be around £35 million. A little further to the west there is the Preston road flyover, costing £10 million. Those works together will cost in the region of £117 million.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) may ask about the lower Lea crossing. That will provide a duplicate for the A13. I have not included it in the figure of £117 million, for it will cost just a modest £25 million. Therefore, in and around the location of the new station, investment in roads of about £120 million is to be made. Expenditure of £8 million, more or less, to provide a decent station must be viewed in relation to that figure.
The docklands light railway will serve my constituency, other parts of Newham, the Beckton area, the custom house area, and, if some people have their way, it might even extend across the river to Thamesmead, which would be sensible. Even without an extension to Thamesmead or Barking, the importance of the interchange with the Jubilee line and with Canning Town cannot be doubted. The same is true of the interchange with the north London link towards Highbury, Islington, and all stations to Watford and further north.
I only ask that the promoters have further discussions with the borough about the facts that I have mentioned, all of which I hope are correct, and will give an undertaking to consider those matters further. Although I have suggested two amendments, it may be that none is required.
My understanding is that undertakings will be given and agreements reached that will enable the matter to proceed without any formal petitioning, questioning or long days before a Committee in the other place. That would be a happy solution. Despite some aspects of the Bill's introduction and purpose, about which some of us have reservations, I do not think that anybody would wish it to be delayed. Therefore, those undertakings could contribute to the speed of its passage. It is in that spirit that I commend my thoughts to the promoter and to the Government.

Mr. Ron Leighton: I wish briefly to support the eloquent case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I hope that the Minister, with what was described as his open mind, will have found my hon. Friend's case as persuasive as I did.
Historically, the east end of London has always had second best. It has always been the poor relation. It has been what I might describe as the backside of London. It was the place where London put its sewage works, gas works, chemical works and noxious industries. It has always had the sticky end of the stick. Whether in housing, health, educational achievement, leisure facilities, employment, income, life opportunities or transport, the east end has always had the worst of the deal.
I view my job as one of trying to even up the position between the east end and the west end, and of ensuring that people in the east end have opportunities and choices as good as those available to people in the west end. It is now

becoming possible, perhaps for the first time, to make some progress. London's centre of gravity is now moving towards the east. The proposed new railway line is an example of that. I say "new", but the idea of the railway line is not new. It was first proposed a long time ago, and then again by the Greater London council. There was a time when it was called the Fleet line. We have been waiting for it for a long time.
What is new is the influence that the developers have brought to bear. They built Canary wharf and other developments, but then found that there was no transport infrastructure and no planning, so no one could gel to their developments. They brought great pressure to bear—perhaps much more than Members of Parliament representing the east end could bring to bear. They also brought their cheque books to bear—perhaps only to a limited extent, but it helped.
I and my hon. Friends welcome the new line; it is better late than never. We are interested in what happens to the line when it goes past Canary wharf and in particular when it reaches Canning Town. As my hon. Friend explained, that is the junction of three lines—British Rail, the docklands light railway and the Jubilee line. It also has several important roads.
There are a large number of designs for that very important station—I believe in excess of 20. The Minister will remember that the designs were laid on the table before us when I was sitting in his office. There were about 20 separate designs for the station, ranging from the good to the bad. Which of those 20 splendid designs have we got? We have got the bad one, the inferior one. Why, yet again, has east London got the inferior one? It comes down to money, to the cost.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said that a proper, decent station would cost £8·2 million extra. The Minister will remember that this was discussed recently at Question Time. He told me that I was wrong when I said that it would cost £8 million. He said it would cost £7 million. My hon. Friend was overdoing it, therefore, when he said that it would cost £8·2 million to build a decent station. According to the Minister, it would cost only £7 million.
The cost of the line will be £1·2 billion, or thereabouts. I always distrust nice, round figures such as 1·2 billion. It will cost not £1·2 billion but thereabouts—give or take £7 million or £8 million, or £70 million or £80 million, or £100 million or £200 million. My mathematics is not very good. I cannot work out what, in percentage terms, £7 million is of £1·2 billion, but it must be an infinitesimal decimal— recurring, I should have thought. We are talking peanuts —of small change, in terms of this project, in order to give the east end of London a decent station.
This is a green field site. We are building something new for the next century, for the next millenium. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said that the British Rail line has been in existence for well over a century. This station will be there for well over a century —indeed, for much longer. When the centre of gravity of London has moved to the east, that station will be used by millions of people, especially after 1992 and all the developments that will take place.
To move from the Jubilee line to the docklands light railway, we shall have to go through that awful, long tunnel. Why on earth is a bad station going to be built when we have the opportunity to build a decent one, of which we could all be proud? We shall be spending £1·2


billion, but we are jibbing at spending £7 million to give the people of the east end, at this extremely important junction of three lines, a decent station.
It is not only Newham borough council that says that. The Leamouth group of private business men also says it. These are people with substantial interests in the private sector. They carried out enormous developments in the Leamouth area on the understanding that they would get the Jubilee line. That was contained in the first proposal that came before the House.
However, that decision was changed. The route is now not on the northern side of the river but to the south of the river. It goes to the Greenwich peninsula. Those business men were told, "Never mind; you expected to get the Jubilee line and you invested many hundreds of millions of pounds in your developments. We snatched the line away, but never mind; you're going to get the docklands light railway." If that is all that they are to get, they will be very interested in the interchange between the Jubilee line and the docklands light railway which is to serve their area. To reach their area from the Jubilee line, people will have to change at Canning Town.
The Minister knows that the developers there want a decent station. Big people in the private sector are pleading for a decent, proper, world-class station at Canning Town. The truth is that nobody is satisfied with the proposed station at Canning Town. I do not think that London Underground believes that it is the best option, but it is hampered by the financial constraints imposed by the Government. The private sector and local authorities are not satisfied. We ask the Minister, for whom many of us have much respect and who has shown in answers to our questions that he has an open mind, to consider the proposal carefully and not to build an inferior station. We are building for the future, so let us build something of which we can be proud.
We made many mistakes by allowing development on the Isle of Dogs before the transport infrastructure was in place. I want the Jubilee line to be run into the Royals, but London Underground is making the mistake of providing only a template junction. We want not a template junction but the railway to run into the Royals—we should place that on record—and a decent, world-class station at Canning Town.

Mr. Thorne: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was kind enough to say that amendment No. 1 is a probing amendment. I take his remarks in that spirit.
It is clear that the station at Canning Town would be better if we were starting from scratch, but that is not so. We must take into account the cost, and I strongly dispute the point that the east end gets the worst of everything. We are debating a Bill under which £1,300 million will be spent on providing a facility essentially for the east end. That shows that hon. Members believe that it is an important part of the metropolis. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said, the centre of gravity of the metropolis is moving east. Many of us welcome that, especially given the excellent work that has been carried out by the London Docklands development corporation and others.
I know the Canning Town area quite well, because I attended school with a boy whose father was the resident engineer at Silvertown Lubricants, which had a large storage depot in Canning Town way. I frequently visited him during the school holidays, and from our travels on our bicycles we got to know the area extremely well. I have much sympathy for the people of the area, but we must accept that there are certain constraints and we must achieve value for money.
Insufficient emphasis has been placed this evening on the alternative connections. There is a perfectly good British Rail-Jubilee line connection at West Ham station, which is a short distance up the line, and the docklands light railway has a good connection at Custom House. We are not saying that people are deprived because they must change trains at this junction. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) mentioned ladies naturally not wanting to use subways late at night, but they can easily change nearby on the same line.
The question is, does the House want to spend £7 million or £8 million on a facility that will not increase revenue in any way? We must get the best value for money in our transport infrastructure. We must consider other schemes—for example, the cross-rail project—where we want to spend money but where we cannot if we spend unnecessarily in a particular part of London.
The Committee went into the matter in considerable detail. Its job was to listen to counsel and to consider the cases put forward by the London borough of Newham, LRT and others. At the end of its detailed consideration, it concluded that the promoters' proposal was right and proper. I therefore ask the House to support the promoters in rejecting the amendment, unless the hon. Member for Newham, South withdraws it.

Mr. Freeman: I suspect that the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) think that I am the villain of the piece, in the sense that Government controls on the total cost of the line forced London Regional Transport, correctly, to ensure that maximum value for money was obtained from the funds available. If money were no object, there is no question but that there would be an interchange of all three lines. There would be a double-deck interchange between the docklands light railway and the Jubilee line and a north London interchange, so that passengers could move freely from one platform to another. But money is an object.
I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Newham, South would agree that the argument that that money has been spent already in the east end is not logical and rational. One must still justify an additional £7 million in relation to the total expenditure on the Jubilee line. The argument of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East that this is a small proportion of the total cost—under I per cent.—is not intellectually justifiable. Every item of expenditure must be justified.
I conclude by offering two positive comments which are outwith the responsibility of LRT, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) speaks. If the subway is taken over by LRT to maintain its security, and it therefore must be closed at certain times of the night, I assure hon. Members that, in terms of providing alternative access 24 hours a day above or across the road, the Department of Transport will work closely


with the London borough of Newham in ensuring that adequate re-provision is made. It is accepted that adequate re-provision must be made.
The Royals extension is not the subject of the Bill, but I assure the hon. Member for Newham, North-East that I share his view. In the long run, we want the Jubilee line extended to the Royals to permit the future development of those docks in the same way as the docks on the Isle of Dogs have benefited from the development and provision of transport infrastructure. There is nothing in the Bill that is inconsistent with what I believe, and what I suspect the hon. Gentleman believes, will happen—an extension and development of the Jubilee line.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) exceeded the terms of my request. He did not say that he would consider the case; in effect, he considered it and rejected it. The hon. Gentleman has every right to do that. I am sorry that he reached that conclusion, although I understand some of his reasons.
We must question what is necessary. I am not convinced that this arrangement would occur in "a particular part of London" if it were in the west end. To take up the important theme of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), if it is not satisfactory for the west end it is not satisfactory for the east end either. As a born and bred Londoner, I make that constituency point very strongly, and I am sorry that it has not been sufficiently recognised.
Of course, money is important but, as I said, we do not know what extraordinary expenditure might be needed underground in other parts of London, not least in the underground station serving the interchange of the District line very close to where we stand. Therefore, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ilford, South responded in the way that he did although he has a right to do so because he represents the promoters of the Bill.
I agree with the Minister that a lot of money has been spent, but the point of my illustration was that it has been spent on another model of transport. Therefore, if more were spent on the rail mode it would not be out of kilter with what it has already been agreed to spend on roadways close to the station. There are other road routes even further away to which I did not refer. Nevertheless, this exchange of views has been useful and I am glad that it has taken place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signed—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Thorne: The House will recall that the Bill if enacted would permit the construction of a nine-mile or 15-km extension to London Underground's Jubilee line, from Green park in the west end to Stratford in the east. This project originates from the east London rail study.
The railway will pass through Westminster, Waterloo, London bridge, docklands and West Ham. It will bring transport benefits by serving areas hitherto not on the main tube network and development benefits in helping to sustain and extend the regeneration of the docklands urban development area. This is a matter set down by the House at Second Reading as a specific instruction to the committee. The Bill has been amended, following

exhaustive examination during 22 days in Committee. The Committee found that the case for the preamble to the Bill had been proved, and considered six issues on which it wished to place specific requirements on the promoters.
The Committee endorsed London Underground's proposal to route the line through the north Greenwich redevelopment site, rather than on the opposite side of the river through Brunswick, as certain petitioners had requested. It stressed the importance of the fullest possible access for the disabled consistent with general safety. It also requested an amendment to the effect that Nos. I and 2 Bridge street, opposite the House, should not be demolished until, by resolution, the House has approved a design for the new parliamentary building, and following full and close consultation with English Heritage.
The Bill is to be amended to remove any possibility of surface works in Parliament square. A protective clause is to be added so that the work site in Jubilee gardens is to be kept some distance from county hall. A full structural survey of the tower blocks on Canada Water estate in the London borough of Southwark is to be carried out. All these requirements were unreservedly accepted by the promoters, and the Bill has been accordingly amended.
I know that some hon. Members have particular concerns, and perhaps the most general is the matter of disapplying the listed buildings controls. Members of both Houses have expressed their disquiet at such powers being incorporated in other Bills for major public works. What the Committee on this Bill has accepted is that such powers should be exercised only as a last resort, and in relation to a schedule of specific properties and to no others. Only one listed building required demolition, and that is remarkable for a project of this magnitude going through the heart of historic central and inner London. Others are included in the schedule as requiring possible alteration, but detailed design work should make it possible to delete some of them from the schedule.
Of particular interest to hon. Members will be the proposals as they now affect the immediate area around Parliament. When the Bill was last before the House as a whole, it involved substantial works in Parliament square itself, as well as on the existing Westminster Circle and District line station. Following detailed review, and close co-operation with the New Building Sub-Committee, I am happy to say that a design has now been evolved which completely avoids the square, and which should dovetail well with Parliament's own needs for new space.
The same architect—Mr. Michael Hopkins—will be responsible for both station design and our own new building. The promoters' proposals require demolition of 1 and 2 Bridge street, but I believe this loss will be heavily outweighed by the advantages, in terms of a satisfactory resolution of the complex needs of the two projects which have to be integrated on this important site. I understand that the Treasury has now agreed to Mr. Hopkins being instructed to design the new parliamentary building.
I know that a number of other matters have concerned some hon. Members—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the London Underground Bill and the Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Thorne: I am sure that the House will none the less wish to give the Bill its Third reading so that it can move to another place.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the Bill receiving its Third Reading. It is nearly a year since it began its Second Reading and it has juddered a bit in the year in between, both upstairs—

Mr. Freeman: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: The Minisster seems to be saying that there was never even a vibration. If he thinks that that is the case, I am happy that it should be so.
It has always been clear that the line was needed and that substantial benefits will accrue to London, west and east, when it is built. Earlier today I reflected on the line's most immediate benefits. It will be possible to travel easily from Green Park or Westminster to Waterloo and London Bridge, both main line termini, which is not possible at present. It will also be possible to travel easily from Waterloo to London Bridge, which it is not possible to do at present. Furthermore, the traffic travelling by road between those two places will be reduced.
There will therefore be practical transport and decongestion benefits as a result of the Bill and the building of the line. There will also be a reduction in the general level of pollution caused by traffic congestion. I hope that there will be great benefits in terms of increased accessibility to parts of London for people such as my constituents, who have been plagued with lousy public transport and being "the gap on the map".
I hope also that the line will mean new job opportunities and that it will be part of a network of improvements for which the Minister and the Government will evidence their support in November—such as the east London line extension, which will bring into the public transport system and network many parts of London which hitherto have not been part of it.
The great difference between today's debate and the Second Reading debate is that today we have been talking about transport, whereas on Second Reading we spent most of our time talking about Parliament square and the parliamentary buildings. Clearly, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) was right to say that those problems have been dealt with because no hon. Member has sought to argue today that our heritage is being destroyed—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Grave discourtesy is being shown to the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor. There are too many conversations taking place. I should like to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. Hughes: You are very kind, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Today we have been debating transport and construction issues—and that, in itself, is progress.
Having reflected on the last year, I find that the Bill is proof that the proposals first advanced are never the last word. There has been some flexibility, and I pay tribute to the promoters and to all who have brought about some changes of heart. I say without reservation that Russell Black and his team in the Jubilee line project office have co-operated in all respects and at all times have facilitated answers to inquiries and dealt helpfully with my questions. I could not have asked for better co-operation. It has

helped to put a little political and parliamentary pressure on them as well as pressure from constituents at public meetings and from local authorities. We have been able to make changes to the benefit of the project and I hope that more changes will be made in the other place.
The Minister for Public Transport has been kind enough to tell me that the assurance that I sought on the Southwark and Bermondsey stations is as firm now as it was last autumn. I place that on the record, because it is important to dispel people's fear that in a recession or time of economic difficulty some of the stations along the line might be removed. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that statement. Now that we have a commitment to all the stations, Southwark and Bermondsey must also remain.
Those interested in the Bill will remember that in the Committee and elsewhere there has been much debate about the alignment of the line in the Canada Water area. Constituents of mine have petitioned—with only partial success—for one of the two alternative routes to be adopted in that area to avoid disturbing residential communities in and around the Canada estate, near the mouth of the Rotherhithe tunnel. Those constituents, the local authority and I are still not happy with the current alignment and the location of the works. They were disappointed that their views were not upheld by the Committee and others, too, were surprised that the Committee did not uphold their argument.
I hope that a way will be found in another place to accommodate their concern. I understand that petitions will be presented and it may be possible, even at this late stage, to find a way to realign that part of the route so as to avoid disrupting that community. A way must be found to minimise the disturbance to them and it will be up to the other place to work out the best way. I hope that that is not regarded as a finished issue and that the other place will note that work remains to be done. The bus interchange links at Canada Water are still under debate and that, too, must be ordered in a way which minimises disruption.
When we debated the listed buildings in Parliament square, the main issue was the effect on our heritage in this place. There is still concern that the architectural work along the line should be compatible with some of the important lists and that the quality of the London Underground buildings must be of the highest standard, reflecting the local built environment and local history—for example, the station on Jamaica road in Bermondsey. I understand that we are awaiting a decision on the architect for the parliamentary phase 2 buildings. It would be helpful if the Minister could make that announcement tonight, as I gather that the decision has been made but not announced. Work could then proceed in that context, too.
I hope that, if the Bill receives its Third Reading tonight, is successful in another place and becomes law some time later this year, the provision of this additional underground line will not be to the detriment of other underground routes in London. There is occasionally a veiled threat that once we have a new line we may not need all the stations on the other lines. In the past, the east London line through Southwark has been something of a line in the corner, but it need not be so if we link it with an east London line extension down to Peckham, New Cross and Lewisham. We do not want stations to be closed just because a new line is opened. Stations such as Rotherhithe and Surrey docks must remain open.
There is a prospect of our having a new line. We have been vigilant to ensure that there is no environmental disruption while it is built, but residents still have enormous concerns. I hope that the debate on the new clauses and amendments will have made the agenda clear and that all those responsible will respond in an even more constructive way in the days ahead.

Miss Hoey: On Third Reading, I must say that I hope that the move towards recognising the need for transport, especially in south London, is the beginning of what is needed. I hope, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, that this is not the end of other tube lines, but the beginning of new development and money going into public transport in south London.
I place on record on Third Reading, too, the concern that I, with other Opposition Members and many Conservative Members, still have that we are wholly ignoring the important green open space of Jubilee gardens beside the river. It is not acceptable that the Bill should be given its Third Reading when so little assurance has been given on how that area can be preserved.
Given the way in which it was possible for things to be changed in order to protect Parliament square, it will be disgraceful if the Bill comes back from the House of Lords without our having satisfied the wishes and needs of the Waterloo area and Jubilee gardens. I know that many hon. Members want to get on to the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, but we are talking about heritage here, too. We are talking about a piece of London which is unique. It is disgraceful that we have not been able to find a way to protect that site in dealing with that most unco-operative and unimaginative body—the London residuary body.
I express my thanks to those concerned with the London Underground Bill, especially to Russell Black, and I echo all the thanks for their work in trying to do what they can. I and other Opposition Members know that they have been tied by the way in which the London residuary body—a public body—has behaved on the issue.
The issue will not go away. The Bill will receive its Third Reading tonight and I will not oppose that, but I have great faith that the House of Lords will show far more sense on the issue than the House of Commons has, and that we shall indeed preserve Jubilee gardens for the future of Londoners.

Mr. Bowis: Like all hon. Members who have spoken in the Third Reading debate, I very much welcome the Bill. Like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), I congratulate the promoters and especially the sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who has steered the Bill through the House and who has listened to many points.
Like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, I will raise an issue for consideration in another place, unless my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South can convince me on the point this evening. In dealing with private Bills, we need to look carefully at what is being slipped through. On occasion, Bills have slipped through the removal of the need to go through certain planning procedures. In the Bill, we have the removal of the need to

go through certain consultative procedures. I refer especially to clause 35, which removes the need to consult on the removal of a stretch of existing underground line once the new line is opened.
It may be right to remove such a piece of underground line—I do not dispute that today. My purpose is to say that it should have been a matter for consultation, as are all other such line closures under legislation. In 1984, the House set up the London Regional Passengers Committee. It changed the name of the old Transport Users Consultative Committee for London and, in so doing, removed the word "consultative". However, it strengthened the rights of consultation for the people of London through the LRPC.
Under the London Regional Transport Act 1984, the LRPC is given the right to be the vehicle to receive objections from users of London Transport. There is a requirement for a notice to be published and users can submit objections to the LRPC which then considers them and makes recommendations to the Minister. The Minister considers the recommendations, any other matters relating to the economy, and the social implications of the decision. He may, if he thinks fit, add conditions to the Bill requiring the interests of passengers to be taken into account.
London Regional Transport has asked passengers to submit views in writing, which have been taken into account. The Bill in its present form bypasses the rights of the consumer because one of its clauses removes the need to fulfil the obligations of Acts of Parliament in relation to closing the stretch of line between works IA and 1B, which we know as Green Park and Charing Cross. I hope that that is not setting a precedent and that we shall retain the right of London Transport passengers to be consulted. I hope there that there will be more time in the other place to consider that further, so that we can wholeheartedly and, unanimously welcome the Bill.

Mr. Freeman: I add my congratulations to those that have been expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne). My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) spoke about the procedure in relation to Charing Cross. That will not set a precedent, and parliamentary procedure has dealt fairly with the issue of the closure of the Green Park to Charing Cross lines. There is no change in relation to Southwark and Bermondsey stations. I outlined that on Second Reading about a year ago.
The commission to design the new parliamentary building at the site of Nos. 1 and 2 Bridge street is being let by the Department of the Environment to Michael Hopkins and Partners. That is the first step in the design of the new building which, I hope, will facilitate the construction of the Jubilee line. The Government strongly support the Bill and hope that the other place will give it speedy passage so that the line can bring benefits to all parts of London.

Ms. Ruddock: I shall be brief, because the House has made good progress. The Committee did a good job and it has not been necessary to raise too many issues on Third Reading. The Opposition support the extension of the Jubilee line and welcome the Bill. We are critical of


Government priorities and the lack of co-ordination in the Government's transport policy for London. However, the extension of the line will provide new and useful access for many people, especially those in south London, to the underground system.
Some of the difficulties encountered in Committee have not been resolved and it is apparent from what has been said, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) in connection with Jubilee gardens and Canning Town, that there will be a need for further debate in the other place. From what the Minister said it is clear that finance is preventing the resolution of some of the difficulties. We regret that, because the amounts are relatively small in relation to the task in hand.
New underground projects take the best part of a decade to complete and will be in use for many decades. To curtail small additional expenditure at this stage and, for example, to forgo the possibility of some money for Jubilee gardens because of the attitude of the London residuary body is unjustified. We hope that when those matters are further pursued in the other place there will be a different and more positive resolution.
Despite those small outstanding matters, we are happy to agree to Third Reading. I should like to place on record our thanks to the Jubilee extension team for its considerable co-operation, its supply of briefings, its assistance and its answers to our questions.
However, we regret that the powers of the London Regional Passengers Committee have been reduced in the way that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) outlined. Although the Minister has assured us that that does not create a precedent, we feel that it is both regrettable and unnecessary to have removed from the Committee the opportunity for proper consultation. However, I welcome the Bill and wish it well in its passage through the other place.

Mr. Thorne: With the leave of the House, I thank the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for their support for the Bill. I am sure that we all wish it a speedy passage through the other place. I do not wish to repeat anything that my hon. Friend the Minister has already said, but I emphasise one point. The branch line from Green Park to Charing Cross will remain open and available for special occasions. It will not be completely closed, but there will not be a regular service on it.
I must take issue with the hon. Member for Deptford on costs. If we were to spend unnecessarily between £50 million and £100 million on this project, it would put in jeopardy other important measures that will benefit the transport-using public in London. We have to take account of the overall cost, which is not as little as has been suggested. One hon. Member said that £7 million was chickenfeed, but I do not agree. It is an important sum of money, for which we must have good value.
I hope that the House will speed the Bill on its way. The Jubilee team of London Regional Transport has done a splendid job. It has been at considerable pains to ensure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had their queries and concerns answered. That is of great importance when dealing with private Bills. I hope that it keeps up that good work, because if it does, the Bill will soon receive Royal Assent.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 5

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS OR SCHEMES

The Lords disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 3 to leave out lines I to 8 but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:

Lords amendment No. 1 , in page 3, leave out lines 1 to 8 and insert:
("(4) Where SNH has prepared a proposal for a development project or scheme for any area which involves the compulsory acquisition of land under subsection (6)(a) below, a compulsory purchase order for that purpose shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure in any case where an objection has been duly made by the owner of the land and has not been withdrawn.
(5) In subsection (4) above "owner" shall have the same meaning as in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947.")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment proposed in lieu of the Commons amendment.
The original Commons amendment was, in my view, acceptable in so far as it removed the right of appeal against development schemes or projects. For the reasons that I gave in Committee, such a right of appeal is unnecessary, because a development cannot be affected without the owner's approval. However, after much careful reflection, we considered that, in addition to removing this right of appeal, it was appropriate to take steps to meet the several concerns that have been expressed about the scope of Scottish Natural Heritage's compulsory purchase power under clause 5.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I wish to develop my point first, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
As I have stressed throughout the passage of the Bill, it is of the utmost importance that Scottish Natural Heritage should be able to develop positive and co-operative relations with all those involved in land use, and this extra safeguard, which we are applying to the compulsory purchase powers in the clause, will be most helpful in that regard.

Mr. Dalyell: As the Minister has said that much careful thought has been given to these matters, are we to believe Mr. Charles Clover, the well-respected correspondent of The Daily Telegraph? He writes in this morning's edition of that newspaper, among other things, that Professor Sir Fred Holliday, chairman of the standards committee for the United Kingdom, was not consulted. Was Sir Fred consulted or was he not?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: On this particular matter?

Mr. Dalyell: Yes.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot confirm that he was. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that compulsory purchase order powers exist for a range of issues—for example, where SNH is satisfied that it is in the national interest that land should be managed as a nature reserve but is unable to conclude an agreement on reasonable terms. There are various other grounds that I can specify if the hon. Gentleman so wishes.

Mr. Dalyell: I do wish it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All right, I shall spell them out. If the hon. Gentleman is anxious to have all the details, I shall give them to him.
Compulsory purchase would be possible where agreement for management of a nature reserve is breached in a way which prevents or impairs the satisfactory management of the land. The other compulsory purchase order that is available to SNH is in relation to public access to open country if it is impracticable to obtain such access by agreement or order.
The amendment provides that compulsory purchase orders made by the Secretary of State under clause 5 should be subject to special parliamentary procedure. Hon. Members may know that, under that procedure, a CPO does not come into effect until it has been laid before Parliament and has been brought into operation in accordance with the special procedure Acts. Petitions may be presented against the CPO and either House may resolve that the order should be annulled.
The most notable use of the procedure at present is to safeguard National Trust land. The definition of "owner" which we have used includes tenants under a lease with more than three years to run. This means that, where such a tenant objects to the compulsory purchase, special parliamentary procedure would come into operation. Hon. Members will appreciate that this provides the same safeguard for a small tenant farmer as for a large landowner. I am sure that the House will be rightly pleased about that.
Overall, the practical effect of the amendment would be that even if the Secretary of State agreed with SNH that a CPO should be made, Parliament's approval would be required via these procedures. I remind those who feel that we may have gone too far with the amendment, and effectively neutralised the compulsory purchase power, of the nature and scope of clause 5. That clause is essentially a re-enactment of a provision that exists in the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. In most instances where the Countryside Commission for Scotland has used the power, the agreement of the landowner has been very easy to obtain. That is because the land concerned has generally been of little value and not in gainful use. We expect that pattern to continue. It is unlikely that SNH would wish to pursue a project where the landowner did not consent. It is therefore unlikely that SNH would ever wish to use its compulsory purchase powers, and the Countryside Commission for Scotland has made no use of them for 20 years. Resort to compulsory purchase in such instances would go against the entire basis of co-operation and partnership that we wish to see SNH establish.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked me earlier whether Professor Sir Fred Holliday was consulted on CPOs. The answer is no. That is because the Joint Committee of the Councils for Mature Conservation has no statutory responsibility for the powers that are set


out in clause 5. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to an amendment that will be dealt with later. I know that he will be especially interested in that amendment.

Mr. Gavin Strang: The Minister said that compulsory purchase powers rest with the Countryside Commission for Scotland. It would seem that the existence of those powers did not prevent a constructive dialogue between the commission and landowners in the community generally. The existence of the powers, although they are never used, surely puts the commission in a position of some strength when discussions take place. Does he not accept that, by weakening the relevant provisions, he is undermining Scottish Natural Heritage?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have never before heard criticism of the involvement of Parliament in such matters. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the powers have been of assistance to the Countryside Commission for Scotland. Let me give an obvious example. Suppose that nobody knows who is the owner of a piece of land. That person may have emigrated 50 years ago. He may not have any descendants, and he may be impossible to trace. I can envisage a compulsory purchase order being entirely reasonable in such circumstances. But the involvement of Parliament is a safeguard in contentious cases.
10.30 pm
Hon. Members will recall that we had a debate in Committee on the availability of compulsory purchase orders, in response to an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). As I explained on that occasion, I feel that, in many ways, the fact that the equivalent existing power has never been used by the Countryside Commission for Scotland is rather a good reason for retaining the power for Scottish Natural Heritage, as it shows that it is very much a power of last resort, the exercise of which would not be entered into lightly.
Given the concerns of all involved in land use as to the scope of compulsory purchase powers, I am confident that the amendment will allow the clause to strike a proper balance between their interests and the powers of Scottish Natural Heritage in relation to development projects. With that in mind, I trust that the House will support the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: We want to get on to the new clause 11, but I ask the Minister one question. He referred to the land being "of little value". In whose judgment is it of little value? Who has made the value judgment that it is of little value in this instance?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All land is of particular value to the person who owns it; that goes without saying. What I meant was that, in monetary terms, it was of relatively little value. Perhaps I should have been more specific in the language that I used.

Mr. Dalyell: My final comment is that I wonder how well thought out the provision is, and why we did not hear much about this in Committee. Frankly, the Government and their advisers might have thought of it a good deal earlier.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not recall that the criticisms that were made in Committee related to the notion of having compulsory purchase orders in the first place. Those criticisms were made from a very different angle from those being made by the hon. Gentleman tonight. But the involvement of Parliament is a safeguard in contentious cases, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is a great parliamentarian, should criticise the fact that we are seeking to involve Parliament in such matters.

Question put and agreed to.

The Lords agree to the following amendment made by the Commons:
After clause 5, insert the following new clause—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: On the consequences of designation, there is a detailed procedure, and I should be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a summary of what it would mean. The management of an area would be set out in a management statement and that would eventually have to go to the Secretary of State for approval at the time of designation. He could approve it in whole or in part or not approve it, depending on how good the case was. One of the effects of designation would be that priority would be given by Scottish Natural Heritage with regard to management and access agreements. Certainly, priority would be given to the areas of research and of course the flow country, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, might be a prime candidate for consideration in this category. I shall be happy to send the hon. Gentleman further information should he wish me to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

The Lords disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons to leave out clause 11, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:

Lords amendment: No. 3, to leave out clause 11 and insert the following new clause—

(7) SNH shall not confirm a notification to which subsection (5) above applies or come to a decision on representations to which subsection (6) above applies without having received and considered the advice of the Committee on the matter; and in any case where a matter has been referred to the Committee SNH shall send a copy of the Committee's advice to any owner or occupier who has made objections or representations at the time when it notifies the owner or occupier of the confirmation of a notification or, as the case may be, its decision on the matter.

(8) Where representations are made to SNH in respect of a notification relating to any land in circumstances other than those mentioned in subsection (5) or (6) above, SNH shall refer the representations to the Committee where not less than 10 years have elapsed from whichever is the later of the date of the notification or the date of any earlier representations made in respect of the notification."

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may take the following amendments: (d), in line 3, at end insert—

'(a) giving advice to SNH in relation to objections or representations made in respect of an application for a sea bed lease for aquaculture within or affecting an SSSI as specified in subsections (4A) and (4B) below; and
(b)'.
(e), in line 17, at end insert—
'(4A) Where an application has been made to lease part of the sea bed (including the bed of a sea loch) within or affecting an SSSI for the purposes of establishing a fin-fish or shell-fish farm, or extending an existing fish farm, and objections and representations have been made to the leasing authority and, within six months of such representations having been made, they have not been withdrawn, the matter shall be referred to the Committee.
(4B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (4A) above where any objections or representations made in respect to a sea bed lease granted for the purposes of aquaculture, and where—

(a) not less than 10 years have elapsed since the date of granting such a lease, or
(b) a sea bed lease was granted prior to October 1986, or
(c) a sea bed lease was granted prior to the coming into effect of the Environmental Assessment (Salmon Farming in Marine Waters) Regulations 1988,

the matter shall be referred to the Committee.'.

(a), in line 27, to leave out subsection (6).
(b), in line 45, to leave out from 'applies' to 'without' in line 46.
(c), in line 53, to leave out subsection (8).

I should inform the House that the amendment involves privilege.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment proposed in lieu of the Commons amendment.
I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if I take account of the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald).
As the House will know, the former clause 11 of the Bill has had a somewhat turbulent history. There were a number of reasons why we considered it unacceptable. In the first place, it would have placed an onerous burden on SNH. It would also have involved so much time and effort that it is doubtful whether SNH could have devoted much effort to any of its other duties during its first five years of existence. Apart from these practical objections, there was, of course, a matter of principle at stake. That led us to oppose both the former clause 11 and the amendments moved in Committee.
The clause and the amendments established a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. That would have been a fundamental departure from the provisions of sections 28

and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and could have resulted in the erosion of the scientific basis of the designation. As that legislation not only embodies the SSSI procedures, but gives effect to our commitment to nature conservation under both international treaties and EC directives, any departure from that legislation on a purely Scottish basis would have called into question our commitment to those obligations and could have led to the risk of challenge in, for example, the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the Minister seen what was said by Charles Clover in The Daily Telegraph this morning? Was Sir Fred Holliday consulted? Is it or is it not true that the Department of the Environment has said that the procedure will not be imposed in England? What has the Secretary of State for the Environment to say about that?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot say whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has been consulted, although I have little doubt that he will be aware of the matter because of public reporting of it. As for the other matter, the criteria for SSSIs will remain exactly the same throughout Britain. It is for the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office to decide about structures in specific parts of the United Kingdom.
Let me remind the House about the way in which SSSI procedures have been operated. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was so concerned about the issue that she raised it in her maiden speech. She said:
We must seek a proper balance between nature conservation and the interests of the people who live and work in the area. To that end, I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will urgently consider the establishment of a Scottish nature conservancy council. … The people of Islay are deeply upset and angry. They fear that in the end 65 per cent. of the land area of Islay will become eligible for designation, and, if that happens, depopulation could occur on a scale not seen since the infamous clearances.—[Official Report, 13 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 717.]
During the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill, the hon. Member for Western Isles made strong representations over the way in which the Nature Conservancy Council had operated the SSSI system in his constituency. He stated:
Too often, I am sorry to say, the southern-based environmental lobby, including the NCC, has been seen by ordinary highlanders as alien, aloof, insensitive, remote, and sadly devoid of any appreciation of the special history and culture of the Highlands and Islands."—[Official Report, 15 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 81.]
I have a high regard for NCC members and for the work that they do, but both hon. Members have a point in believing that the NCC needed to become more responsive to local circumstances.
The Scottish Crofters Union, in its representations for the paper, "Scotland's Natural Heritage", stated:
Crofters in general are very dissatisfied with the way these SSSIs are designated, and especially with the wording of the statutes that regulate them. The NCC has done little to address this problem.
Similarly, the Borders Farming and Forestry and Wildlife Advisory Group stated:
In many cases, the way in which the Special Interest of SSSIs have been communicated to farmers and land owners leaves much to be desired. A less abrasive procedure would achieve better co-operation.
We produced the new clause to balance the legitimate concerns expressed by owners, crofters, and occupiers of land about the role of Scottish Natural Heritage in SSSI notification with our fundamental commitment to the SSSI system, as set out in sections 28 and 19 of the 1981 Act.
The new clause was approved by an overwhelming majority in another place, where it had the general support of Opposition peers. The Opposition's Front-Bench spokesman for Scotland in another place had a briefing meeting with my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde and with officials on the morning of the debate on our new clause. I am sure that, as a result, he fully understood its purpose and effect—contrary to reports that appeared in the media.
The new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to appoint a committee of people of relevant scientific qualifications and expertise, whose independence from SNH is guaranteed by the provision in subsection (2), which excludes the appointment to the committee of any member of SNH, or a member of any committee appointed by SNH.
The committee's remit covers only the scientific validity of the notification of new and existing SSSIs. In relation to new SSSIs, subsection (5) provides in effect that if any owner or occupier objects to notification and SNH cannot persuade him to withdraw his objection, SNH has a duty to refer the matter to the committee for advice.

Mr. Maclennan: I read subsection (2) with considerable care, but it is highly ambiguous. I take it that the Minister intends that members of the advisory committee should have scientific experience, but the clause could equally well be interpreted as excluding those who have scientific qualifications and experience. As a matter of statutory construction, I am far from convinced that the Government have got that subsection right. It seems possible that scientists would be excluded from membership of the committee.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member asks a question that I asked a short time ago. Advisory committee members must have scientific qualifications, but it is important that they should not also serve as members of boards of Scottish Natural Heritage. However, if a person came off one of those boards, there is no reason why his or her eligibility for the advisory committee should not be considered. However, a person could not serve on both simultaneously.

Mr. Dalyell: It is proper that the Minister, as a lawyer, should have asked that question. May I ask him in turn of whom he asked that question, and what was the reply?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have what I regard as extremely good legal advice in the Scottish Office, whose officials act as a team. I assure the House that they would not make

proposals unless they had been carefully checked by Scottish Office lawyers—and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Bills are drafted by lawyers.
10.45 pm
Subsection (6) deals with existing SSSIs, which in general are subject to a somewhat different procedure. Scottish Natural Heritage is given six months to try to persuade the owner or occupier to withdraw his objection. If the representations have not been withdrawn within six months, SNH must refer the matter to the advisory committee. The subsection distinguishes two different categories of existing SSSI. In cases where objections or representations were made at the time of the original notification, the owner or occupier can ask SNH to refer the case to the committee as soon as the Bill comes into operation. For other cases—that is, where no objections were expressed in the first place—SNH does not need to refer the matter to the committee unless 10 years have elapsed from the date of notification. In relation to both new and existing SSSIs, the objections must relate to the scientific interest of the site.
Subsection (7) makes it clear that SNH cannot reach a decision until it has received and considered the committee's advice. A copy of that advice must also be sent to the objector when SNH notifies its final decision on the case. Subsection (8) introduces a 10-year cycle for objections for all SSSIs, once they have been dealt with under the provisions of subsection (5) or (6).
That is an essential feature of the new clause, as SNH could otherwise be asked to refer the same SSSI to the committee almost continuously. Ten years seems a reasonable period, especially when it is borne in mind that SNH will constantly monitor the scientific interest of the site during that period under the general workings of the 1981 Act.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the Minister leaves the review procedure, can he explain why that socialist newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, quoted Mr. Magnus Magnusson—the chairman-designate of Scottish Natural Heritage—as saying that he was
'deeply unhappy' about the review procedure which he believes could overburden his new-born quango and lead to the reconsideration of any of Scotland's 1,300 SSSIs"?
If it is all such plain sailing, why has SNH's own chairman not been carried with it?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: When I saw—

Mr. Dalyell: Answer the question.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I intend to answer the question; the hon. Gentleman must give me the opportunity to do so.
When I saw Mr. Magnus Magnusson, he made it clear that he would approach the subject in a very positive frame of mind. I have nothing but confidence in his chairmanship. I think that he is outstanding. The hon. Gentleman asks a valid question. He wants to know how much pressure could be put on SNH in, for example, the number of cases that could be generated—

Mr. Dalyell: I want to know why Mr. Magnusson is not happy.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has asked a question and I shall answer him. There is concern about how many cases would be generated. The


hon. Gentleman may not be interested in that, but Mr. Magnusson certainly is. I shall set out what I believe to be the position. The number of cases going to the advisory committee will depend on a number of factors. First, it is for owners, crofters and occupiers to decide whether they wish to make representations on scientific grounds. Secondly, SNH and the crofters, owners and occupiers will have an opportunity to resolve any differences over a six-month period. Any figures that may be put forward are, therefore, purely guesswork. It is impossible to estimate the figure.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Is the Minister disputing Magnus Magnusson's estimate that the new procedure will cost about £1 million or £1·5 million per year to operate?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Mr. Magnusson has never mentioned those figures to me. I expect the figure to be relatively small, but we shall take full account of it in the annual public expenditure survey round and ensure that adequate resources are made available.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The Minister started with a flurry of confidence, saying that he would give us the latest up-to-date position on the impact of the new arrangements on Scottish Natural Heritage. I expected him to say something about the number of appeals that the Scottish Office estimates there will be. Rumours are going around among the various environmental bodies that several hundred cases are already in the queue. The Minister signally failed to live up to the beginning of his speech, because he ended up saying that he had no idea what the answer was. Is the Scottish Office setting up the new procedure without any idea of the impact that appeals will have on the workload?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can give the hon. Gentleman some information, from which he may be able to make an estimate. Of the 541 SSSIs approved for confirmation by the Nature Conservancy Council committee under the new procedure since 1985, 153 were the subject of objections. That is some 28 per cent. of the total.

Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. I have answered the point that he made in his earlier intervention.

Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister give way on this point?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do so reluctantly, because I want to get on.

Mr. Macdonald: The Minister said that he had seen no estimate by Magnus Magnusson of the magnitude that I described. In today's edition of The Daily Telegraph Mr. Charles Clover states:
Mr. Magnus Magnusson … has told Mr. Lang, Scottish Secretary, in a letter seen by conservancy council staff, that the new scientific appeals committee could cost Scottish Natural Heritage … up to £1·5 million a year.

Has the Minister seen the letter that Magnus Magnusson wrote to the Secretary of State? If he has not seen it, why not? If he has seen it, can he deny that Magnus Magnusson gave that estimate of £1·5 million?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will check up on that and make absolutely certain that, if any such letter has been sent, I will see it as quickly as possible. I can only repeat what I have already said on the subject of resources —that this will be considered with the greatest of care in the autumn, during the public expenditure round, to make certain that the resources awarded are adequate for the purpose.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question.
This would be a convenient place—

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House of Commons is turning into a fiasco. May we not, through you, appeal to the duty Whip to ask either the Lord President of the Council or the Government Whip to come to the House to see what is happening and then, for the sake of Scotland and the heritage in general, to return and clarify the Government's understanding of their own Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. I suggest that we get on with the debate, which may well produce clarification.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This will be a convenient place to deal with the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Western Isles. As the House will appreciate, the SSSI system does not and cannot extend below the low water mark and, therefore, does not directly have an impact on marine fish farming. The amendment can therefore only refer to leases for marine fish farms affecting SSSIs. There can be no sea bed leases within a site of special scientific interest.
The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, be aware of the existing arrangements for dealing with applications to the Crown Estate for sea bed leases where there is an objection to the proposals from one of the statutory bodies—local authorities, river purification authorities, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission for Scotland and, in due course, Scottish Natural Heritage. Where there is an objection that cannot be resolved, the case is referred by the Crown Estate to an advisory committee appointed by the Secretary of State. The committee is purely advisory and deals only with individual cases. The Crown Estate should take account of the committee's advice in determining the location for a lease.
The advisory committee on SSSIs, as proposed in the Government amendment, has the same relationship to Scottish Natural Heritage as the fish farming advisory committee to the Crown Estate. The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Western Isles would, therefore, result in a bureaucratic procedure. There would be a four-tier chain from the SSSI advisory committee to Scottish Natural Heritage, from Scottish Natural Heritage to the fish farming advisory committee, and from that committee to the Crown Estate. I am sure that the hon. Member will recognise that that would be an administratively inefficient and cumbersome procedure.

Mr. Macdonald: I do not want to create extra bureaucracy. Why not get rid of the advisory committee to the Crown Estate and have a single advisory committee, if one is necessary, comprising scientists from both quangos, to advise on disputes?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The advisory committee on fish farming has an important role to fulfil and will do so with great efficiency; many of its members are experts.
The hon. Member for Western Isles wishes to modify the clause by exempting existing SSSIs from its provisions. That is unacceptable. It is regrettable but true that much of the criticism of the SSSI system in recent years has stemmed from the way in which notification was handled by the former Nature Conservancy Council, as the hon. Member said in debates on the Environmental Protection Bill.
Subsection (6) of the new clause 11 is a response to that criticism. It gives Scottish Natural Heritage a chance to ask the advisory committee to reconsider a matter where an owner or occupier can make a case on scientific grounds for having a particular SSSI referred to the committee.
I note that the hon. Member for Western Isles would like to remove subsection (8). In relation to new SSSIs, that would mean that, once the committee had considered a case referred to it under subsection (5) there would be no requirement on Scottish Natural Heritage to refer further representations to the committee.
I should make it clear that subsection (8) fulfils a dual function. For new SSSIs, it gives owners and occupiers a chance every 10 years to make further representations to SNH, on which the committee's advice must be obtained. For existing SSSIs, it prevents an owner or occupier from constantly challenging the scientific validity of the site. That seems to be essential protection for Scottish Natural Heritage.
The purpose of subsection (8) is to establish a 10-year cycle for reference to the committee in respect of all SSSIs. In our view, it is only right and proper that owners and occupiers should be able to activate the advisory committee procedure again, as in the course of 10 years there could be considerable changes in the scientific interest of the site. In every case, the owner or occupier would need to make a case on scientific grounds for having the matter referred to the committee. A 10-year cycle would not be unduly burdensome.
I suspect that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) may be concerned about subsection (8) because he believes that it allows for representations on matters other than the scientific justification for notification. I can assure him that it allows no such thing. Taken on its own, it is possible to interpret it as referring to representations of any kind made in any circumstances, but the subsection must be interpreted in the context of the clause as a whole and what it is intended to achieve. The clause is designed to provide the opportunity for owners or occupiers to ask for reassessment of the scientific basis and the scientific basis alone, of the SSSI notification. To that end, it provides for referral of representations to a committee of persons with scientific qualifications.
Subsection (8) is not free-standing and does not allow representations on other matters to be considered, first, because it starts by referring back to subsections (5) and (6) and, secondly, because to read the subsection on its

own would be to deny the closing words on the 10-year time scale much of their meaning. Those words fix the starting point of the 10-year period by reference to the date on which representations about the scientific basis of the site were last made. There seems no point in using this formula if the intention was to allow representations on non-scientific matters to be referred to the committee.

Mr. James Wallace: In response to a question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Minister said what he expected the work load to be as a result of the earlier clauses. Has the Scottish Office or Scottish Natural Heritage made an estimate of how many representations they expect to receive under what might be described as the retrospective provisions of the Lords amendment? How many officials and paid staff will be required to deal with them? In the light of the representations that have been received, within what time scale do they expect the matter to be resolved, and what will be the cost to the public purse and Scottish Natural Heritage as a result?

11 pm

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I said earlier, about 28 per cent. objected. I imagine that virtually all those who did not object will not wish to object in future, because the circumstances will not have changed.
The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Western Isles from The Daily Telegraph today are merely mooted in the letter from Mr. Magnusson to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The whole thrust of the clause is to enable owners and occupiers to ask SNH to think again about the scientific reasons justifying the notification of an SSSI and to have the opportunity of a second opinion. That is clearly the purpose behind subsections (5) and (6), which are the main operative provisions of the clause. Subsection (8) is ancillary to those provisions. Subsections (5) and (6) provide, in appropriate cases, the first opportunity after the coming into operation of the Bill for owners and occupiers to implement the new procedure. Subsection (8) deals with all cases thereafter, by placing them on a 10-year cycle.
There is the further point that, if subsection (8) has as wide a meaning as may be inferred, what would be the point of referring representations about matters of a non-scientific nature to a committee composed entirely of people with specific scientific qualifications?
There has been some speculation as to what would happen if SNH chose to ignore the advisory committee's advice. Would the committee have any recourse to the Secretary of State? The answer is that the committee will have no statutory recourse to the Secretary of State. That would be quite contrary to our commitment to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, under which the final say on SSSI notification remains with SNH as successor to the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. The committee could not be stopped from making representations to the Secretary of State, but in relation to an individual case there would be no action that the Secretary of State could take. His power of direction under the clause is limited to procedural matters, and his power of direction under clause 11 is disapplied to SNH's conservation functions under the 1981 Act.
The final decision, as I said, is for SNH. It is not accurate to speak of SNH ignoring the committee's advice. It is perfectly clear from subsection (7) that, where a case


is referred to the committee, SNH cannot take a decision unless it has received and considered the committee's advice. That point is of considerable importance in relation to the question whether objectors would have any right to make a legal appeal against SNH's decision. There is no such right in the new clause, nor does the new clause affect the position regarding judicial review. There has always been a right of judicial review of the decisions of the former NCC or of the present NCCS. SNH will be in the same position.

Mr. Maclennan: What happens if an application for judicial review is made and the advisory committee has given advice that is contrary to the advice leading to the disputed decision? Is there not a much greater prospect of success for the appellant than would otherwise exist? Normally, judges would be unlikely to substitute their discretion for that of the body whose decision is challenged. If there is a counter-opinion by an expert body, the issue is much more open.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The only statutory obligation on SNH is to consider the committee's advice. It is not under an obligation to follow that advice. If it is shown that a person has considered the advisory committee's advice and has not acted unreasonably, the decision is safe from legal challenge.
Questions have also been asked about the situation in which SNH's acceptance of the advisory committee's advice leads to the denotification of an SSSI. Would the owner or occupier be able to claim compensation? There can therefore be no basis for a claim for compensation simply because land has been denotified. This is the case at present and will continue to be the case once the advisory committee has been established. If an SSSI is denotified or the area of a site is reduced in a case where a management agreement is in force, the question whether any sums paid under the agreement would be recoverable by SNH or whether any further sums would still be payable to the owner or occupier would be determined by the agreement itself.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech in a moment. I wish to get on.
Some concern has been expressed as to how, in the case of new SSSIs, the deliberations of the advisory committee will fit into the nine-month period from notification laid down in section 28(4)(a) of the 1981 Act. That is a matter of legitimate concern, especially because, if SNH did not receive the committee's advice within the nine-month period, it would need to withdraw the notification, which would then fall.
I assure the House that we were aware of that problem when drafting the clause. That is the main reason why we included subsection (4). In the case of new SSSIs, it may well be necessary and desirable for the matter to be referred to the advisory committee at the same time as it is being considered by the relevant regional board of SNH and the Scientific Research and Development Board. There is nothing in the clause to suggest that the advisory committee's deliberations should be fitted in at the end of the process. In fact, the clause requires SNH to receive and consider the committee's advice before reaching its own

decision. We believe that the flexibility gained by leaving those details out of the clause will be of great benefit to the committee on procedural matters. We envisage that there will be a core of about five members, but we would expect them to be supplemented by experts.
As for the committee's procedures, we would expect them to be kept as simple as possible, especially given the time constraints that I have discussed. I could say a lot about the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and resources, but I should prefer to hear what hon. Members have to say first. The opportunity for independent appraisal and the scientific case for notification meets many requests for action on that point.
I should also make it clear that nothing in the new clause would override the statutory duty of SNH to notify sites under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: Having listened to the Minister, I and my colleagues are no clearer about the general reason for and thrust of clause 11 or about the specific detail, and nor do we think that the Minister is clear about them. For the Minister to allow the reintroduction of the clause was to act in a fairly despicable manner and to betray pledges made to the House. We shall remain opposed to clause 11. The case against the clause is basically a scientific one, and I shall develop that point later; but first there are two other serious issues that I shall consider.
In supporting the reintroduction of the clause, the Government have bowed unashamedly to the vested interests of the landowners. This is once again an example of the fact that, in forming legislation to suit vested interests, this Government are second to none. It is much to their discredit that they have allowed themselves to be bulldozed by the landowning community.
A more serious charge against the Government is that, by allowing the reintroduction of clause 11, they have broken pledges given in the House and in another place. By breaking those pledges, the Government have broken the all-party consensus on the Bill, which is not in the interests of Scottish Natural Heritage or of the Scottish environment.
In Committee in another place, Lord Strathclyde said on 5 December:
The Government have repeatedly stated, especially during the course of debates in this House and during the progress of the Environmental Protection Act, that they are not prepared to contemplate any change to the statutory procedures for site notification.
Yet that is what the reintroduction of clause 11 specifically does and it also breaks that pledge.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds had predicted that the reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council would lead to differing standards of conservation in Great Britain. Ministers had assured Parliament that that would not be the case. I again cite Lord Strathclyde:
the Government cannot change the provisions for SSSIs laid down in the 1981 Act in a Scottish Bill as these are Great Britain measures.
However, the reintroduction of clause 11 does just that, because, by referring objections to an independent committee, the Government are seeking to overrule SNH's statutory duty to notify SSSIs.
Lord Strathclyde also said in Committee in December:


The Secretary of State cannot overrule the statutory duty of SNH to notify an SSSI under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981."—[Official Report, House of Lords; 3 December 1990; Vol. 524, c. 55–56.]
In February this year, The Secretary of State said in a Scottish Office press release:
This decision underlines the Government's continued commitment to the SSSI system, as the essential mechanism for ensuring the protection of areas that are unique of representative sites of scientific interest for plants, animals and earth science features.
It follows that I do not intend to support the case for a statutory right of appeal.
Yet that is what the Government are doing by accepting the reintroduction of clause 11.
The Government will deal in semantics and say that it is not a right of appeal but merely a second guess, but that is not the case. By reintroducing clause 11, we are establishing an appeals procedure for the system of notification which breaks all the pledges that the Government have given the House and the country. Why have the Government done that? As I have said, they have bowed to the landowning fraternity, but not to all of it.
The main protagonist behind clause 11 is Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who is no friend of the SNH, which he seems to see as a communist plot. Writing in The Field of May 1991, which is my natural reading, he showed a mixture of paranoia and ignorance about SNH, stating that the Bill was
being driven through the Commons by an ambitious and interventionist Department of the Environment.
That must come as a surprise to the Scottish Office. I know that it is rarely in charge of its own briefs, but to suggest that the Bill comes from the Department of the Environment, not the Scottish Office, is nonsense.
Lord Pearson went on:
Ministers who do not understand the countryside are executing briefs written by a new brand of civil servant … based largely in Bristol.
Again, that must come as a surprise to the Scottish Office and, indeed, to the many civil servants there who have been working on this Bill. Can someone please tell Lord Pearson that this is, indeed, a Scottish Office Bill?
Lord Pearson continued—he is the main protagonist—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he is quoting a noble Lord who is not a Minister, in which case he should paraphrase.

Mr. Galbraith: The noble Lord continued—I paraphrase, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that the provisions reflected the worst instincts of the component parts of the new constitution, which were socialist control—from the Countryside Commission—and narrow-minded science—from the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland.
Those seem to be the words of a bigot. The suggestion that the Countryside Commission for Scotland is under socialist control is ridiculous, and must come as some surprise to the chairman, Roger Carr, and his staff.
I shall finish with another paraphrased quote from the noble Lord, who said that, when the British Communist party disbanded at the end of last year, it advised its members to continue the fight from within the green movement, adding that the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill is an important test case. Green can be quite red.
I have dealt at some length with his Lordship, to explain the background of the opinions and personality of the

main protagonist of the reintroduction of clause 11. The supporters of clause 11 are opposed not just to the SSSIs, but to the whole concept of Scottish Natural Heritage. Clause 11 is a wrecking clause that has been inserted to kill off SNH before it gets off the ground. Why, oh why, have the Government responded to the likes of Lord Pearson, who does not speak for all the landowners?
Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington, the convener of the Scottish Landowners' Federation, is a man for whom I am developing increasing respect, especially since I have read some of what he has written. When writing in The Field, which I read every month, he felt moved to rebuke Lord Pearson. He said that Lord Pearson was his friend and he understood his view of past happenings. He said, however, that if private ownership was to survive in Scotland, his patrician attitude, reminiscent of the 19th century, was not helpful.
Gordon-Duff-Pennington went on to say that the setting up of the well balanced regional boards would do much to defuse the past criticisms of NCCs, and that it was suicidal to condemn them at that stage. He said:
We asked for the repatriation of the NCC to Scotland. Now that we have it, it is up to us to make it work without the unifying force of antipathy of anything English! We have won the war. It is now up to the people of Scotland to win the peace, and that includes Lord Pearson‡ Long may he survive in Rannoch, but if his attitudes persist it will make the job of my successor that much more difficult".
I agree with Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington. Let the noble Lord Pearson not just survive in Rannoch but also look after his SSSIs there too. Let us do away with that patrician attitude reminiscent of the 19th century.
11.15 pm
Clause 11 will have a serious detrimental effect on conservation in this country. Scottish Natural Heritage will take the best possible advice on whether a site is of special scientific interest. Why, therefore, set up another committee to second-guess the Nature Conservancy Council? It is impractical, unworkable, divisive and inflammatory.
As a result of clause 11, which was originally inserted in the House of Lords, Magnus Magnusson, chairman of the NCC in Scotland, reviewed its internal procedures and announced new arrangements for notifying SSSIs in Scotland. The revised procedure will enable disputes over SSSIs to be referred to the NCC's regional board. If the dispute remains unresolved, it will then go before the full NCC council, who would seek the advice of its new scientific committee. That was welcomed by the Government and all those involved and was considered to be an excellent way forward.
Suddenly, however, that has all been thrown aside, and, without consultation with the NCC or Magnus Magnusson, clause 11 has been reintroduced. No wonder he is furious. Why threaten his attempt to base the SSSI system on trust and co-operation by reintroducing the clause? There is no need for an appeals system because, unlike a planning application, SSSIs is simply a notification.
On that matter, I agree once again with the noble Lord Strathclyde, who said, on Report stage of the Bill in another place:
Those who would argue that the SSSI procedures are unfair and undemocratic seem to me to be missing the point; that is, that notification of a SSSI in itself places no restriction on the use to which the owner or occupier put the land. All that is required is for any changes to the use of that land to


be agreed with SNH. The system is a voluntary one. SNH will not be able to impose a particular land use on an unwilling owner."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 1990; Vol. 524, c. 776.]
I accept that the designation of an SSSI is a matter of opinion and not a scientific fact. There will be scientific facts about the site, but whether they are sufficient to make them of special scientific interest is a matter of opinion, and that is what the dispute is all about. However, we must agree that it is not like a planning application, which can prohibit certain actions. SSSIs are simply a scientific designation.
A list of potentially damaging operations is given to the owners of sites, and if they wish to undertake any of them they are under a duty to inform Scottish Natural Heritage. However, in the last resort they can ignore them and proceed to do whatever they wish with their land. That is why we do not need an appeals procedure.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's general remarks. He must also be aware, however, that the designation can have a pecuniary impact if a grant for afforestation is withheld because the ground has been designated.

Mr. Galbraith: I remember the hon. Gentleman making that point before. I accept his point, but I do not see why, if a site is of scientific interest, we should give taxpayers' money for it to be developed. If people wish to develop it through their own resources, that is open to them, but we should not make taxpayers' money available to them to do so.
Subsection (5) is bad enough, in that it concerns objections to new SSSI notifications which challenge the scientific case, but subsection (6) goes even further and requires any scientific objections to existing SSSIs to be referred to the new committee. I know that the Minister was reticent about what impact that would have, but a strong rumour is going round conservation circles and bodies that there are already 200 objections lined up for the committee to take on. That will paralyse Scottish Natural Heritage from the outset. Surely the Government cannot stand that.
The proposal invites appeals on a 10-year cycle, and acts as a focus for growing anti-SSSI campaigns among the landowners. That cannot be in the interests of the SSSI system or of Scottish Natural Heritage. The position is now ridiculous. SNH designates a site of special scientific interest, an objection is raised and goes to an appeal committee, which then second-guesses SNH—and it may have its own internal appeals procedure. It goes on through the regional committees and the scientific committee. There is nothing factual; we should simply have another opinion and be no further forward. For those reasons, we should not accept the amendment.
What of the cost? The Minister was again reluctant to say what it would be. Will it cost £1·5 million to set up the new system? The committee will have only a skeleton staff. It will have to use SNH's scientific advice, officers and information. What will the cost be? Is the Minister saying that the new committee has been set up by the Government without their having any idea of the cost implications with regard to SSSIs? Can we have a straight answer from the Minister? He says that £1·5 million is a speculative assessment. By whom? Have the Government made any speculative assessment? Does the Minister deny that it will cost that much?
The proposal will also undermine the basis on which SSSIs are identified, whatever the Minister may say. We were given assurances under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that there would be strict equality among the countries of this kingdom in the notification of SSSIs. That has gone with the reintroduction of clause 11. The idea is not accepted by any relevant body in any of the countries. The proposal will also lead to a breach of international obligations under the Berne convention, the Ramsar convention and the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds. Are we willing to accept that?
SNH is a bold new step in conservation in this country. It merges the body mostly concerned with access and recreation, the Countryside Commission, with the environmental protection board, the Nature Conservancy Council. I, my party and other Opposition Members think that SNH should be given a fair wind. Instead, by accepting the reintroduction of clause 11, the Government have thrown a ball and chain round both feet of SNH. It will have to drag its way through a decade. The Government should move the impediment. I trust that we shall gain support in opposing the amendment.

Mr. Bill Walker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the noble Lord Pearson, who introduced the clause in the Lords. They probably listened to fairly lengthy speeches—and I will not make a lengthy speech tonight, such as I made in Committee. We are moving into areas of fundamental importance. It is all very well to get involved in the legal niceties; the important point is that, if people are affected by decisions, it is only right that Parliament should recognise that the experts giving the advice to the new body are not the only experts. I congratulate the Government on accepting the view that I put in Committee that there are other experts.

Mr. George Foulkes: Like you.

Mr. Walker: I am not an expert in these matters; I know little about them. However, I know that I ran into the same problems in aviation matters. It is nonsense to say that because someone is not a member of an august body at some given time that he is not an expert. As the Minister said, someone who has been a member of Scottish Natural Heritage could leave it and retain his expertise, which would be available to the advisory committee.
It is wise to have second opinions in matters as sensitive as these. Within the past few weeks, one of my landowners was visited by a person who wanted to set about producing an SSSI. That visit was much more conciliatory than some previous visits in my constituency. Our debates are obviously having an impact, because the report that I received from the landowner was favourable. The new body could be much more willing to listen and to care for the interests of those who live on and work the land.
I am astonished that Opposition Members think that an appeal against a decision by a quango is wrong. The Secretary of State is accountable to the House and has to answer our questions. He will set up the committee and while he cannot intervene we will be able to question him. Without new clause 11 that will not be the case. I congratulate the Government on listening to the will of Parliament.

Mr. Macdonald: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, will he support my amendments, which are


designed to raise the Crown Estate commissioners advisory committee to the level of the Government's proposed advisory committee? Does he agree that it would be desirable to be able to ask questions about sea bed leases as well as the type of question that the hon. Gentleman mentions?

Mr. Walker: As a matter of principle, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, on matters of principle, I rarely deviate. The only time that I deviate is when my children are involved, at which time I face conflicting interests. I understand what lies behind the hon. Gentleman's amendments. However, his hon. Friends on the Front Bench argued against his amendments by saying that he wants to extend the area of influence in the same way as the new clause. His hon. Friends know little about the countryside, unlike the hon. Gentleman. We all acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's extensive knowledge of crofting, and he carries the House with him when he speaks about such matters.
I am very happy to support the new clause.

Mr. Macdonald: I hope to see yet another somersault by the Minister and the Government on this issue, as that would be a fitting end to the acrobatics that we have witnessed during the passage of the Bill. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will adopt a wise course and withdraw the new clause. I do not think that he will do that, so I have tabled fallback amendments which would limit the damage that the new clause will wreak upon Scottish Natural Heritage. The Minister should seriously consider the options that I have suggested, especially in amendments (a) and (c).
The amendments are designed to prevent the new advisory committee having to dig up stuff that has already been thoroughly worked over by the Nature Conservancy Council which carried out a comprehensive review of SSSIs over 10 years at a cost of £50 million. In view of all that, we surely do not want to see the advisory committee getting bogged down in going over the designations again. That would be a waste of taxpayers' money. If the Minister is determined to set up the advisory committee, he should at least give it a clean slate, rather than having it go over the innumerable SSSIs that have already been investigated.
11.30 pm
I ask the Minister to think carefully about this. If my request is too much for him, I suggest that he uses the powers available to him in subsection (3), which says:
The chairman and members of the Committee shall be appointed upon such terms and for such periods as the Secretary of State may … determine".
Therefore, he has the power to forbear from setting up the advisory committee immediately. He can give the successor to the NCC, Scottish Natural Heritage, the opportunity to work itself into its responsibilities and to get its organisation up and running before it is landed with having to go over the notifications. One or two years' pause would be advisable. Perhaps the Minister will say whether the Government feel that the setting up of the advisory committee should be the first priority. I hope that he will see the case for letting the matter rest for a while, allowing Scottish Natural Heritage to work itself in.
The importance of the amendments is such that we need to discuss them in some detail. Labour Members are disappointed that the Government and the Minister have,

at the very end, after the many debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee, when we thought that we had come to a cross-party consensus on the matter, turned somersaults and gone back on their commitment. It is not good enough for the Minister to use the comments that I made in debates on the Environmental Protection Act or during passage of this Bill about my dissatisfaction with the state of the NCC.
Yes, I thought that the NCC was aloof, and that it should work more closely with crofters in the highlands and islands, but the advisory committee has nothing to do with that. It will not make Scottish Natural Heritage any less aloof. It is no answer to the problem, and it does hot begin to tackle such issues as integrating environmental needs with the many kinds of land use that are appropriate to the highlands and islands.
The new clause goes against common sense, the rules of administration and what the Government have repeatedly assured us that they would do. It was not five years ago, not a year ago, but in recent months, during consideration of the Bill in this place, that the Government assured us that they would not be taking such an amendment on board.
First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) said, SSSIs do not prohibit or prevent anything taking place, so the amendment is unnecessary from that point of view. Secondly, it would lead to inefficiency. It would mean a duplication of work and an increase in bureaucracy and procedure. Thirdly, it would lead to a gross waste of taxpayers' money. I am amazed that the Minister was not aware of the estimate made by Magnus Magnusson, who said that it would cost £1·5 million to set up the new advisory committee. That estimate was contained in a letter to the Secretary of State. I do not know the system that operates in the Scottish Office, but surely the letter should have crossed the desk of the Under-Secretary of State.
As I have said, SSSIs do not prohibit or prevent anything from taking place. In theory, they are designed to trigger discussion and lead to agreement between SNH or the NCC and the land manager or occupier. The procedure is well enough known, but it is worth setting it out once again. Although it is well known, it is clear that it is too little understood.
Before a designation of an SSSI is made, owners or occupiers of land are given notice of the designation that is about to be made. They have nine months to make submissions in objecting to, or trying to modify, the designation. If there have been instances where owners or occupiers have not been so notified, that is a problem which comes within the bureaucracy of the NCC and one that can be resolved administratively. It is not a problem that could be solved by the advisory committee. It is worth emphasising yet again, even after my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden has set this out, that even after the notification is made the only restriction is a requirement to consult SNH before certain listed damaging operations take place.
The outcome of the consultation can be either a management agreement—that is, an agreement between SNH and the owner or occupier about what can be done with the land—or the owner or occupier ignoring the strictures of the SNH and doing whatever he wishes with the land. There is no prohibition on the owner or occupier—if there were a final prohibition, as there should be, the NCC would not need to make payments of £500,000 to


persuade individuals not to act as they propose to do. Such payments are not the subject of tales of old or of legend and Lord Thurso. There are disturbing instances of such gross payments being made recently. For example, £568,000 was paid to Mr. John Cameron, a farmer, who did not plant trees that he had some putative plans to plant. Surely such payments are a gross waste of taxpayers' money.
I would draw the Minister's attention to a story in The Scotsman of 11 June, which describes the test case. The writer of the article in question makes a point very relevant to the debate:
Technically"—
even after being offered £568,000 not to participate—
Mr. Cameron can decide to ignore this and the restrictions it imposes, refuse the money, give the NCC four months notice and go ahead and farm the area in the way he wants to.
There is no prohibition. There is nothing to prevent him from acting in the way that he wishes with his land. Why do we need an elaborate advisory committee to second-guess something that is not prohibited in the first place?
I said that the advisory committee would lead to an inefficient duplication of bureaucracy and procedures. Scottish Natural Heritage and the NCC for Scotland already have a scientific committee in the form of the Science Research and Development Board, whose members are already appointed directly by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what will be the difference between the criteria used by the Secretary of State to appoint the scientists who sit on the Science Research and Development Board—advising the practising scientists in SNH as to the general criteria for designating SSSIs—and those used to appoint scientists to the new advisory committee? There must be some kind of difference, or we should not need two different committees.
Of course, as well as already having the science committee, SNH will have a whole structure of regional boards designed specifically to address the problem of aloofness—to get SNH close to the ground and to allow local input of objections, problems, worries and concerns into the decision-making procedures of SNH. That network of regional boards will cost SNH £500,000 a year to operate. Surely with that extensive network of regional committees, with the existing science committee and with the on-going review of notifications that SNH carries out in any case, there is no need whatever for the new committees, which would simply duplicate the work already done and lead to further bureaucracy.
In a statement issued on the day when the amendment was moved in the other place, Sir Magnus Magnusson said:
It betokens a sad lack of Government faith in its own legislation"—
the setting up of the advisory boards and the science committee
and my own repeated assurances about the manner in which NCCS (and later SNH) will operate its statutory duties regarding the notification of SSIs. It is also a vote of no confidence in the Science Research and Development Board which NCCS has appointed. Part if its remit was to provide, if required, an independent review of the scientific criteria on which SSSIs were being selected by NCCS.
That is a damning indictment of the Government's concession to the other place by the person whom the Government themselves have chosen to lead the new Scottish Natural Heritage agency.
I have already made the point about the cost of the new advisory committee.
The Minister referred to speculation about the £1·5 million figure. Yet again, he showed little faith in the person appointed by the Government to head Scottish Natural Heritage, who suggested that that was what the operation of the new advisory committee would cost per year. What better information has the Minister to allow him to second-guess Sir Magnus Magnusson? Has he any other facts or statistics? If not, why does he not accept Sir Magnus's estimate? If he does accept that estimate, does he really think that taxpayers will get good value for money? Is he willing to allow that amount to be spent on the committee?
11.45 pm
The Minister has said that the committee will have about five members. Has he any idea of the administrative costs—the basic costs, regardless of the number of reviews undertaken? What staff will be provided—or will the committee be wholly reliant on SNH for staff purposes?
My other amendments deal with such matters as sea-bed leases. If the Government insist that an advisory committee be set up, why did they first tackle the supposed problem of complaints and objections to the operations of the new SNH, rather than considering the many serious objections to the decisions of the Crown Estate commissioners? The alacrity with which the Government have responded to the complaints expressed by Lord Pearson contrasts starkly with the deaf ear that they have repeatedly turned to crofters, fish farmers and shellfish farmers who have protested about the commissioners' lack of accountability.
The Minister suggested that the new committee was on a par with the advisory committee for the Crown Estate commissioners. Surely nothing could be further from the truth. First, the commissioners' advisory committee is not independent. Its members are not appointed directly by the Secretary of State; the committee is set up by the commissioners, albeit with a little gentle arm-twisting from the Secretary of State behind the scenes. Secondly, the commissioners' committee has no statutory basis: it is included in no legislation. Thirdly, it has no scientific resources on which to draw. Finally, it has no financial resources either.
The contrast between the two committees could not be starker, and could not demonstrate more clearly the Government's attitude of favouritism towards the pleas of the land-owning lobby and the deaf ear that they turn to the ordinary people of the highlands and islands.

Sir Hector Monro: It is a pity that we must hold such an important debate so late at night. Many of us are interested in the subject, but, given the time, we must all try to be brief.
Over the past couple of weeks I have felt disappointed about the Lords amendment, but I feel a bit less disappointed after listening to what the Minister said. It seemed that the new committee would be so anodyne and inconsequential that its existence might not be very important. As was said by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), we were assured that there would be no changes to the notification procedure under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or to the ground rules affecting conservation. That is why all members of the Committee welcomed the


Government's removal at high speed of the then clause 11, whose demise was unanimously agreed upon in a good-natured debate.
Implicit in our debate was that the new procedures offered a welcome new way forward that would be responsive to local needs, and that the new regional committees would offer a catalyst for a different type of consultation from that offered by the Nature Conservancy Council in the past. I was hopeful that the close liaison between the regional chairmen and the site owners would be harmonious and would help to remove friction, and, more importantly, would allow from the start proper explanation of what potentially damaging operations meant-—so that they would not be nearly as fearsome as many people believed.
I have always firmly believed that a decision on an SSSI should be taken strictly on scientific values, and should not take into account broader issues—as the landowner might wish. However, having heard my hon. Friend the Minister tonight, I am not sure that there is any change in that respect, for it seems that the committee will be strictly limited to an alternative scientific view. That is nothing that one could criticise, except in terms of cost.
In Committee on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. I explained, in replying to an excellent debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), that the owner of an SSSI had a right of appeal in respect of planning, conservation orders and compulsory purchase orders and that it was not all one-way traffic against landowners who, in many cases, were fortunate to own an SSSI.
As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will remember, we took enormous trouble to ensure the correctness of the scientific procedures set out in sections 28 and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It was not the legislation that was wrong but its application. That must be a criticism of the Nature Conservancy Council—for which I, as a member of it for many years, must take a share of the blame.
I frequently told the council that I found it hard to believe that SSSIs of 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 acres or larger were justified, and argued that at the end of the day that practice would rebound—as it has in the flow country and at Killin, at a cost of £560,000, and at Inverlochlarig near Balquhidder, where an SSSI of such enormity has been created that the landowner will inevitably seek a management agreement, which may cost another £500,000.
Will any future awards come out of the SNH's annual funding, or will they be funded additionally by the Treasury? If there are half a dozen or more awards, that will deplete the money that has been put aside for conservation. It will be a serious loss to Scottish Natural Heritage.
We must consider the size of future, present and past SSSIs—the advisory committee will deal with that under retrospective legislation—and bear in mind the thrust of sections 28 and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It was intended that, in general, SSSIs would be relatively small, with tremendous emphasis placed on the high quality of the scientific area recommended for notification. Some large areas of the Pennines have been designated as SSSIs. Those blanket areas lie at the heart of the controversy. If we had stuck to the original concept, we would not now be introducing new legislation or paying

out huge sums of money either on management agreements or to prevent an owner from carrying out what he believes to be his rights on his land.

Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman has experience both of the Scottish position and of the Department of the Environment, in which he served as a Minister. Is he surprised that the Department of the Environment is taking a very different view of these matters? Now that we are approaching midnight, and in the light of what has been said, would not it be sensible for the Government: to report progress and give further consideration to the matter? If they did that, we could then deal with the Bill in a much shorter time than I fear might be the case tonight. If the Government will not give way, some of us might be tempted to say a great deal, and it will be light before we finish.

Sir Hector Monro: That is a rather difficult question. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not carry out his threat of a long sitting. On the first point, obviously there will now be different standards for SSSIs in England, without any form of appeals system similar to that for Scotland. In some ways, such a difference is unfortunate.
I do not want to add time to the debate. I have expressed my concern that we have over-reacted to what another place viewed essentially as the rights of an owner of an SSSI. We could have got away with allowing the new system to percolate through Scotland and ensuring that SNH had a new, harmonious approach to the whole issue of SSSIs. That could have been achieved without additional legislation.
I shall listen with interest to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. I simply feel that we have gone a step further than is necessary.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), in a measured way, has traced the history of the debate. I have no doubt that he is right in his judgment that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, for which he had such an important responsibility, developed in its application by the Nature Conservancy Council very differently from the way in which its progenitors imagined. If it had been used in the way he would have had it used, we should not be debating the new clause. Alas, the language of the law is of importance. That is why this debate is important.
Whatever the Minister may have said in his opening remarks—it was very interesting, though delivered with a brio and at a speed that was untypical of him—when it comes to construing the Act the words that he used tonight will not be quoted in court. That is why I asked, in an intervention, about the composition of the committee. I remain unconvinced that the language provides for a committee of scientists. As I read it, the language provides for a committee from which scientists are excluded. Whatever the Minister's intention may be, the matter will have to be decided in the courts, if the Bill is passed as drafted.
12 midnight
Having inquired about the meaning of the Bill, the Minister perhaps recognises that there is an ambiguity, which is testimony to the speed with which the new clause was drafted to take account of considerations in another place and in a Committee of this House. I do not believe that that is the right way to legislate on a matter of such


importance. There was widespread dissatisfaction—which was not confined to the landowning classes, as the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) seems to think—about the fact that designations of vast tracts of Scotland could lead to changes in land use being inhibited and about the community interest being perceived by those centrally empowered to take decisions about the heritage in a way very different from those who will be affected by such decisions.
I acknowledge what has been said about section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 being simply a requirement to notify—that it is a requirement that has no binding legal force—but in practice, as it affected farmers and small farmers who wanted to engage in a small afforestation scheme, or just to plant a shelter belt for the benefit of their livestock, it had a practical impact not only on the economy of the individuals affected but on the economy of highland communities in particular.
That is why there was such an outcry over the way in which the powers were exercised by the English-based body in Peterborough. That is why, in her maiden speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) spoke so passionately about what had been done in Argyll and why I felt moved to speak about the preposterous language used by the former chairman, Sir William Wilkinson, who described the flow country of Caithness as a wonder of the world, comparable with the great buildings of the Moguls in India.
The reality is that the Government had to move to satisfy Scottish opinion that what was being done in the national United Kingdom Bill was suitable for Scotland. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I welcomed the decision to establish the new Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland—to become Scottish Natural Heritage. However, the Minister has played ducks and drakes with the reputation of the new organisation because of the way in which he has handled the appeals issue.
The case for an appeal rested not on the need to second-guess the scientific judgment of the newly appointed body, but on considering whether the scientific judgment should be displaced by economic, social and development considerations and, if it were to be displaced, whether it should be displaced by someone with democratic authority so to do. That was why my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute moved an important new clause in Committee that would have required the Secretary of State for Scotland to confirm a designation.
Before that new clause was tabled, I took the trouble to speak to Mr. Magnus Magnusson about the approach to a demand for an appeal. He made it quite plain to my colleagues and I that he had no objection in principle to what I was suggesting. He saw, as I saw, that that power would rarely be exercised, and only in a clear-cut case where the community interest in not designating was so strong as to displace the scientific judgment of those whose job it was to designate. He said that he would not campaign against it and would not raise his voice against it. He has, however, raised his voice against the Government's proposal—and not surprisingly. It is proposed that the experts who have been employed by the Nature Conservancy Council to judge whether land is of scientific importance have got it right, yet not only are they to be second-guessed and therefore, in a sense,

downgraded as experts, but their whole procedural operation is to be implemented by the creation of a new committee of scientists.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not legitimate to speculate that, had Mr. Magnusson known that the Government would behave like this on clause 11, he would not have taken the job in the first place? No self-respecting busy man in his position would have undertaken the task that was offered to him on those conditions. It is clear that Lord Cranbrook would have nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Mr. Maclennan: I believe that Mr. Magnusson is a public-spirited citizen and that he will balance considerations such as those that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned with the possibility of continuing to play an effective role in the preservation of our natural heritage in Scotland. His reservations about this new lateral committee, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, were justified. The committee has the power of delay and of second-guessing, but ultimately it is not an appellate committee that can directly strike down the judgment of the Nature Conservancy Council.
I take issue with the Minister if he does not accept that the proposal will strengthen the possibility of judicial review being successfully pursued by someone whose land has been designated and who does not accept that designation. It will be much easier to obtain judicial review and successfully to challenge the discretion of the Nature Conservancy Council.
I do not wholly go along with the view of the hon. Member for Dumfries that the committee could be so anodyne that its incorporation in the structure would be of no importance. That remains to be seen, and some aggrieved landowners—we have seen some of them in another place—will be ready to put it to the test of judicial review fairly promptly if they receive some support from the lateral committee.
I do not think that the Minister has done justice to the issue, to the men and women whom he has asked to carry out this difficult and sensitive job or to the purpose of separating the Scottish administration of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 from that being exercised in Peterborough.
The House has been called upon to deal with an amendment which, on the face of it, is designed to tackle a legitimate worry. Its purpose is to provide a stop—the Minister spoke of a "second opinion". In so far as it provides for a second opinion, it may indeed offer some stop for the benefit of those who are worried.
For the benefit of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), I repeat that crofters have been concerned. Mrs. Julia Crowe, a Caithness constituent who speaks for the crofting interests within the National Famers Union for Scotland, made a powerful plea on behalf of the crofters for some form of appeal, a form of second-guessing, an opportunity to slow the designation process so that the legitimate concerns of those affected by designation could be taken on a board before a final decision was made. That was a reasonable action to take, and I understand and support the reasons behind it.
I understand also why the Government wanted to go some way towards meeting those grievances. Unfortunately, they have not chosen the right way—the way that we advocated in Standing Committee, the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute


recommended that we should go and the way that we shall have to go when we review the operations of the Wildlife and Countryside Act if we find that disputes continually arise from the designation process.
I hope that disputes will not arise from the process. I take great comfort from the fact that Mr. Magnus Magnusson has established in Scotland a new organisation which is close to the ground, with committees comprising people who are drawn from the affected communities and are knowledgeable about their interests. That will make it less likely that the conflicts of the past will recur.
The scientific basis upon which these judgments are made is another important point. The scientists who are to be employed by the NCC must be of the highest quality and must be seen to be independent. When the decision was made to split the NCC, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and others were afraid that that scientific base of authority would be dispersed. It has been said—although I do not know on what authority—that the NCC intends to scatter parts of the scientific base around different academic institutions in Scotland. I must warn against that, for it would run the risk of leading to precisely the sort of dispersal, loss of identity and loss of a clear voice to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow rightly drew attention.
There must be a coherent, constructive group that works together and is identifiable and separate from the interests of any other academic institution. That is the reason for the move to have the organisation established not under the umbrella of a university but in an area of great scientific interest, in the highlands. But I would stray beyond the ambit of the amendment if I went further down that route.
It is important to recognise that the amendment could damage the scientific standing of the people upon whose advice the NCC must act. Who are the others who are to second-guess them? If they are drawn from the same university to which the NCC teams are attached, there will not be much evidence of separation or of different points of view, and the procedure could be ludicrously bureaucratic, satisfying no one. Although I understand what the Minister has done, I cannot approve of or support it and nor can my right hon. and hon. Friends. We think that he has tried to improve the Bill, but failed in the attempt.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has set out clearly some of the difficulties posed for the chairman and members of Scottish Natural Heritage, and I hope that the Government will heed his words.
We all wish SNH to succeed, but the clause would hamper rather help the new organisation as it settles to its operations and tries to do its important work for the environment of Scotland. The Government are on shaky ground. They support the proposal, which is different from their earlier attitude, but they have not yet justified the enormous somersault in attitude. I should like an explanation of why they have performed such a somersault in opinion. I opposed clause 11 at the start of the proceedings on the Bill and I remain opposed to this variation of it.
The other place has forced a replay of the debate for all the wrong reasons. The proposal will undermine the

relationship between SNH and the landowners. We have heard from Mr. Magnus Magnusson how he wishes to build bridges between the SNH and the landowners, to create trust and to overcome some of the previous problems and ill feeling. Mr. Magnusson should be encouraged in that task, but the proposal would have the opposite effect. It would undermine his efforts and might well set landowners against SNH and cause disputes between it and the landowners with whom Mr. Magnusson wishes to engage in dialogue and to create trust. The Government are mistaken to support the proposal because it will undermine the important work to be undertaken by SNH.
I also believe that the proposal will duplicate the SNH's work, for example, through the Science Research and Development Board by second-guessing decisions already taken and by second-guessing arguments and analyses already made. The Government will merely add to bureaucracy and overload the system instead of streamlining it.
The new organisation must be given time to settle down, to establish its modus vivendi and to show what it can contribute to the Scottish environment. The proposal will hamper rather than help that process. An extra appeals system added to what is a purely voluntary system is merely a recipe for delay and conflict. The Government seem to be inviting conflict and dispute and encouraging people to tackle SNH rather than encouraging it to build bridges and confidence with its clientele, which is what the landowners are.
The proposal will turn SNH in on itself and tie it in knots because of the extra workload. Have the Government any estimate of the case load that the amendment will produce for SNH? The number of potential appeals is open-ended. The greater the number of SSSI appeals, the greater the financial and bureaucratic burden on SNH resources. We have still not received an answer. We deserve something better than what we have heard so far. I am concerned that the clause could merely siphon off scarce and valuable resources from the main work of SNH.
What are the Minister's estimates of the effects of the new committee on SNH resources? When asked how many cases he estimated that the new appeals committee would handle, he said that it depended on a number of factors. That is scarcely enlightening. He said that it would be guess work and that he expected the figure to be small, but on what estimation is that based? If I heard him correctly, he said that of the 541 SSSIs established since 1985, 153 were subject to objections—that is 28 per cent. I imagine that 28 per cent. would be the minimum that we could expect to go to appeal, but if nearly 30 per cent. of cases went to appeal that would be an enormous burden on the new committee and, more importantly, on SNH.
Will there be 10, 50 or 100 such cases? We must ask the Minister to put a figure on it as until we have that estimate we can have no idea about the costs or the extra staff that will be required by the new committee, which will have to be met by SNH's existing budget. That is not a good or a fair way to treat the new organisation as it settles into its important work.
The Government's role has been disgraceful. Earlier in the passage of the Bill, the Minister gave clear undertakings against this, but there has since been a somersault. The Minister should have some reason to justify such a fundamental change, but I have not yet


heard one. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will tell us why the Government have totally changed their opinions and are now backing this idea. All that we now have is a version of the original rejected clause. What the Minister has said so far has been inadequate, but he now has the chance to tell us what has changed to bring about such a fundamental change of opinion.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman, like me, sat through the Committee stage. Did he have any inkling then that this was in the Government's mind or does he agree that during all the hours that we spent upstairs in Committee Room 11 or 12 we had no idea that the Government thought this?

Mr. Welsh: It was amazingly well disguised. The Minister owes those hon. Members who served on the Committee and, indeed, the whole House an explanation for this immense somersault. Is it really a Government capitulation to a small group of landowners in another place? I knew that the Government were out of touch, but I did not realise that they were so out of touch. The provisions are a landowners' mini-charter to meddle and prevaricate in the important work of the new SNH, amounting to a power to delay, to stall and to detract from SNH's real work. I appeal to the Minister to give SNH every opportunity to settle in and to achieve its own style and not to lay this massive potential burden on its shoulders, which could only deflect it from the real and important work that I hope it will undertake for Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: I start by appealing to the Minister where the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) left off. If House of Commons debates are conducted on a party basis of yah-boo on the central issues, that is all well and good, and we understand that Governments should not give way. However, in different circumstances, and where the objections that have been made are not on traditional party lines, and especially where one of the Minister's right hon. Friends, a former Minister and a member of the Nature Conservancy Council for a number of years takes a very different attitude to that of the Government, should not we at least have the opportunity to pause and think?
If a Whip were present, I would offer a bargain. If the Government were to report progress, I should make only a short speech when we returned to the issue after a week or 10 days, because we would at least know that there had been a chance to consider the matter, to take it back and to talk to the civil servants. Heaven knows, anybody can be wrong, but it is ridiculous to get into a fixed position simply because there has been a hijack in the House of Lords.
I am not in the business of trying to keep hon. Members out of their beds late at night for the hell of it. However, they should understand that this problem was not apparent during all those hours in Committee. Quite bluntly—if this is a parliamentary word—many of us feel that we have been double-crossed. It may not have been deceit on the part of the Minister, but that is the effect of what has happened. No Opposition Member would dissent from the fact that we have been double crossed. That is how many interested people in Scotland, including some Conservative Members, feel.
In those circumstances, I wish that the Leader of the House or the Government Chief Whip were here—

incidentally, it is strange that they are not—to make a decision. They should be rung up and told of the prospect that I may continue speaking for a long time. The problem could be simply solved by saying, "Let's pause and think about this. We have a problem. Things have gone wrong." Things went wrong for the Government in the House of Lords, where there were probably misunderstandings. Some Labour peers must have been out of their minds to vote as they did. Would it not be better for the Government Whips to send their colleagues home to think about the matter?
I am a man of my word, and if that happened I would not delay the proceedings but would make a short speech. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but I do not think that they would delay the proceedings either. If the Government Whips do not accept my offer, so be it. Our proceedings will be longer than necessary.
There are currently some 1,300 sites of special scientific interest in Scotland, covering 750,000 hectares. The Scottish SSSIs are among the best places for wildlife.
The Government's new clause 11 will create an independent committee to advise SNH on SSSIs. The amendment will allow SSSI owners to make retrospective appeals against existing SSSIs and to appeal every 10 years. Subsection (8) of the new clause is constructed in a way that enables owners to make objections on non-scientific grounds. That is the background to the position, and no one will contradict it.
Do I detect movement from the Government Whips? If so, it will be good news for those who want to go to their beds, but if they decline my offer and hon. Members are kept out of their beds, the Whips will be to blame.
Hon. Members could easily go home if the Government Whips would see sense. All I ask is that they agree with the Daily Telegraph. Its well-respected environmental correspondent, Mr. Charles Clover, put the matter in a nutshell in today's edition of that newspaper:
Mr. Magnus Magnusson, the chairman designate of SNH has said he is 'deeply unhappy'".
That is the Government's own man who is deeply unhappy about the review procedure, which he believes could
overburden his newborn quango and lead to the reconsideration of any of Scotland's 1,300 SSSIs.
Their own guy is complaining and saying that he is deeply unhappy; it is not some opponent.
12.30 am
The article continues:
Professor Sir Fred Holliday, the chairman of the committee responsible for co-ordinating standards of nature conservation throughout Britain said he was never consulted.
Will the Minister tell me whether that is true? Is it true that Sir Fred Holliday was not consulted? It is either true or not.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) asked a parliamentary question? The answer stated:
the advisory committee can deal only with individual cases within the site guidelines overseen by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and there will be no overlap in membership, it was not necessary to consult the JNCC chairman.

Mr. Dalyell: That reveals the lack of good will. The Minister says that it was not necessary to consult the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. If that is the attitude,


why should a man who has been vice-chancellor of Durham and many other things stay on in that position? The Government are fundamentally changing the legislation. To say that it is not necessary to consult someone whom they have appointed as chairman of the JNCC is not only extremely unwise, but exceedingly bad manners. Do the Government wonder that he is deeply insulted? It is appalling bad manners for the Government not to consult their own chairman of the JNCC. If the Government do not think it worth consulting him when they fundamentally alter the terms of reference on which he is to operate that is not a mature, adult way in which to go about things. It is not how British Governments normally went about things.
Does the Minister not understand the enormity of his bad manners? He sits there silently. The truth is that he did not understand the brief. He read out the brief, but who thinks that he understood much of it? He gabbled through it. That is preposterous. I am sorry to say that we will go on long into the night. [Interruption.] if the hon. Member for Wycomb (Mr. Whitney) is wondering what this is all about, he should read page 12 of The Daily Telegraph. If he missed it, I will read it for him.
Charles Clover
explains how a Scottish crusade against restrictions on land usage could have nationwide repercussions. A dispute on whether cows may safely graze on Rannoch Moor in the Highlands of Scotland has brought the House of Commons today a measure which many conservationists fear could wreck Britain's system of nature protection enshrined in the 10-year-old Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Many of us care about that. Like the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), I spent 100 hours in Committee on the Act. Much thought and care went into the Act and we do not want to see it wrecked. The Daily Telegraph is saying that it is wrecked. [Interruption.] If the Minister of State for Defence Procurement wonders what this is all about, I will tell him that, in alliance with The Daily Telegraph, I am explaining, in the words of its well-known correspondent, Mr. Charles Clover, why we are so angry. As a senior member of the Government, he should know.
The article continues:
The government amendment to the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill which comes to the Commons for approval today generates strong feelings on both sides. Conservationists believe that it could open the door to the de-notification of hundreds of the most important nature conservation sites in Britain, protected over the past 10 years, such as the great wild bog-landscape of the Flow Country of Caithness and Sutherland, or parts of the Cairngorms or the Western Isles.
This week we had an Adjournment debate on the Cairngorms and the issue of Mar Lodge is becoming increasingly known to many hon. Members.
The article goes on:
Many landowners in Scotland, from absentee landlords of sporting estates to smaller farmers and crofters, believe that the measure provides a democratic appeal mechanism for the first time against an intensive bureaucracy—the Nature Conservancy Council (the devolved version of which north of the Border, now carries the tag 'for Scotland'.
Who is right? The truth lies, as ever, somewhere in the middle. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, piloted through Parliament by Michael Heseltine in 1981".
Any designation of world heritage sites, which Mar Lodge should be, is a matter for the Secretary of State for the Environment. He has distanced himself from all this legislation, and the chairman of the 1922 Committee

knows from experience that it is the Government as a whole rather than the Scottish Office going off at a tangent who make such policy.

Mr. Macdonald: Does my hon. Friend regard it as odd that he is addressing himself to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and not to a Minister from the Department of the Environment? As the Scottish Office did not consult the chairman of the joint committee, perhaps it did not consult the Department of the Environment. The legislation has implications for SSSIs not just in Scotland but in England and goes against the assurances that such designations would be common throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister has heard my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). Was the Department of the Environment consulted?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Of course.

Mr. Dalyell: What did it say?
The Daily Telegraph continues:
So far Mr. Heseltine, Environment Secretary, one of the architects of the 1981 Act and therefore of the SSSI system, has not become involved.
He never did become involved in anything that he did not want to become involved in.
The Department of the Environment has said the procedure will not be imposed on England.
If it is such a good procedure, why is it not being imposed on England? There may be differences. Could we be told the difference? I am waiting. There is a long way to go. I have a substantial speech to make, and if hon. Members wish to go to their beds, all they have to do is put pressure on their Whips.
I give a public undertaking that, if we adjourn the debate now, the next time round I will not talk for more than 10 minutes. I am dead serious about this, because there are large issues at stake. Once before, I have kept the House of Commons up, all night, and that was over retrospective sanctions on Iran. It was the first U-turn that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) ever agreed to.

Mr. Strang: I remember it well.

Mr. Dalyell: I am sure that my hon. Friend does. After 1 have finished, other hon. Members will speak.
The Daily Telegraph goes on:
The system has never been particularly popular with landowners. Notable flare-ups took place in the Somerset Levels in 1984, when effigies of Patrick Jenkin, then Environment Secretary, and the head of the NCC were burnt, and Orkney where similar events occurred.
I am not sure that we want effigies of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) burnt, but that is what it is coming to.
The article continues:
The disadvantage of the SSSI system is that it imposes upon the landowner a list of 90-odd 'potentially damaging operations' which he must not carry out. The Nature Conservancy Council and its successors pay compensation to the landowner for the earnings forgone. Imposed upon the landowner of a small fragment of English ancient woodland, this does not cause much hardship. The designation of large areas of the Highlands of Scotland—which constitute much of Europe's remaining unspoilt land—potentially threatens livings on a politically explosive scale.
The Opposition Chief Whip has now arrived. I will have to explain to him what has occurred. Without any sign in the Committee that this would happen, the


Government have totally changed the basis on which the Bill operates. It is not a minor change. It is a geological change in the nature of the Bill. That is no exaggeration. An offer has been made three times. Although the Opposition Chief Whip is in the House, I do not know where the Government Chief Whip is.

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: He is in the House.

Mr. Dalyell: If he is in the House, it would be in the interests of hon. Members if they asked him to come to the Chamber with the Leader of the House.
I will repeat my offer. I will not speak for more than 10 minutes if a motion to report progress is moved, with the advantage that the Government can go back, reflect on what has happened in the House of Lords, on what has been said by Opposition Members and, above all, on the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries, who is a member of the NCC and the Minister who did most of the work on the 1981 Act, and we may then come to a compromise.
It is no good the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) looking sour about this. He may be chewing a Smartie, but he does not look very pleased. I am not asking for an apology. I am merely saying that some concern should be expressed about the muck-up that surrounds the heritage bodies that have been set up by the Government. If the hon. Members who have recently entered the Chamber are unconvinced, I repeat yet again that the chairman who has been chosen by the Government, Magnus Magnusson, is deeply unhappy.

Mr. Bill Walker: Given the hon. Gentleman's interest in scientific matters, does he dispute that it is possible to obtain different views on scientific priorities and that it is therefore important that the scientific priorities that are listed by anyone should be questioned?

Mr. Dalyell: It is important that we understand that the system can work perfectly well by means of negotiations. If those in the heritage organisations and the NCC officials become more flexible and a bit softer in the negotiations after designation, that is one thing. If, however, we are to have provisions built into the system that undermine the legislation that has been devised, that is an entirely different thing.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was a conscientious attender of the sittings of the Committee that considered the Bill. Even in the light of the amendments that he introduced, did he have any inkling that the structure that we are presented with this evening would be introduced? If so, he did not let the Committee know that that would happen. He did not tell the members of the Committee that the structure would go anything like as far as that which is before us. The truth is that the structure was spatchcocked into the Bill in another place.

Mr. Strang: In a sense, the issue goes even further than that. When the announcement was made that foreshadowed the Bill, when we were told that the NCC would be split and that there would be an amalgamation with the Countryside Commission for Scotland, there were many who suspected that that reflected a strategic change in the Government's approach and that the landowners' views

and interests would prevail much more frequently over the views and wishes of the environmentalists and, dare I say, the wider community.
There are many who find it disturbing that the amendment is a confirmation of the suspicions that followed the Government's announcement. I am not certain wherther my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) articulated precisely suspicions about a strategic change, but I know that he was uneasy about the decision to split the NCC, given his knowledge of the body. It is fair to say that the general body of opinion in Scotland, including the Opposition, was that the Government should be given the benefit of the doubt. How on earth can we do that, however, when they show themselves so willing to give way to the lobby of the Scottish lairds in the other place?

Mr. Dalyell: I take my hon. Friend's point entirely. Those concerned knew what they were up to, and they acted to further their own interests. I cannot put the issue more succinctly or eloquently than my hon. Friend. I should like to know what the Minister has to say about my hon. Friend's intervention. I am not playing games. My hon. Friend is an agricultural scientist and he has advanced a valid argument. What is the Minister's comment on his comment? There is no point in becoming bad-tempered, because it so happens that, when we start lifting stones in this place, we find that all sorts of creepy-crawly things come out from under them.
The more we examine it, the more flawed the scheme appears. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) is absolutely right that the present proposal was not in the prospectus. It is something very different from what was agreed on Second Reading and in Committee. Had we known about it in the first place, it is doubtful whether the Government could have got their proposals through as easily as they have, and with all the good will that accrued to them—from most of my colleagues, although not necessarily from me. I was against the break-up of Peterborough but had become reconciled to the proposal—as John Francis and Magnus Magnusson know—after our meeting at Hope terrace. The present proposal, however, is totally different from that which was agreed.
Clover goes on to say:
Dissatisfaction with SSIs in Scotland, and mistrust of the Peterborough-based NCC led Mr. Rifkind, then Scottish Secretary, and Mr. Ridley, then Environment Secretary, to devolve the latter in 1989 into three country agencies. Then the row began.
That was the beginning of the matter. Clover continues:
The latest flare-up has come out of the Bill setting up the successor body to the NCC in Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage … Lord Pearson of Rannoch and other Scottish peers such as Lord Grimond, have pressed the Government into a last-minute amendment to establishing a new independent scientific committee which will second guess all SSSIs set up by SNH.
I ask the Minister a direct question: does he agree with The Daily Telegraph that what is involved is second-guessing? I do not call the Minister a dumb Minister; I would merely say that he is a Minister who has been struck dumb. It would be very much easier if some answers were given to these questions.
We are talking not just about a few Members of Parliament—let alone a few difficult Opposition Members —but about The Daily Telegraph, representing the views of many people in Scotland who have been outraged at


what has happened. In order to truncate my speech, I shall leave out the quotations from Magnus Magnusson and Sir Fred Holliday. Thereafter, the article continues:
There is clearly a problem to be solved, though whether this procedure is the best way to do so remains to be seen. Lord Pearson, himself an absentee landowner"—
that is not my description, but that of The Daily Telegraph—
told the Lords of his unresolved dispute with the NCC over a 250-acre SSSI on his estate. He says he was told categorically by the local NCC officer that he was not allowed to graze cattle on rough molinia grass on his SSSI, he could only use sheep or deer. Like many other landowners who believe they have done nothing wrong, for Lord Pearson, a point of principle had become a crusade.
So the proposed change in the Bill is all about a row over 250 acres owned by a pretty new peer—described by one of his colleagues as an upstart peer—who suddenly appeared in the House of Lords with the amendment and took with him a number of people who did not fully understand what is at stake. The laws of the country, as discussed by this House, are being changed by the personal circumstances of one peer.
The House of Commons gives short shrift to those who go on and on about their personal circumstances. The only Member of Parliament who did that with aplomb was Robert Maxwell. The House has little time for any hon. Member who makes great public statements, and tries to alter law, on the basis of his own circumstances. Clearly, however, that has been done on this occasion: this debate is all about the personal gripes of some very well-off people. On that basis, should the Government really change their mind? Should they alter what was considered opinion when the Bill went into Committee?
The trouble is that the Government secured the Bill's Second Reading on pretty false pretences. It is an open question whether they would have done so had the full display been made. I do not know how the hon. Member for Dumfries could have voted in favour of Second Reading had he known that all this was in the shop window. The hon. Member can, of course, speak for himself; but he does not dissent from what I have said, and I suspect that I am right.
Lord Pearson said:
If they treat me like this, just think what they do to the crofters in Orkney".
He added:
I cannot see why the establishment of a scientific committee which will second guess the scientific reasons for choosing a site as an SSSI would weaken the legislation. Surely it will strengthen it.

Mr. Bill Walker: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have not the scientific knowledge to substantiate what I am going to say. May I present a hypothetical example? Let us assume that an SSSI is designated because it is the habitat of a certain type of frog, and that tree felling is not allowed there. There may also be a need to enhance the area's salmon production, and tree felling may be beneficial in that regard. In such circumstances, is it not advisable to obtain a second opinion?

Mr. Dalyell: That can be dealt with by means of negotiation. Given the rows and the alleged tactlessness, Sir William Wilkinson may well have a different side of the story to tell. I admit that what happened in regard to the flow country was unfortunate; but the answer is not to undermine the whole system as it is now proposed, but to employ a rather gentler form of negotiation. Given that

the flow country is at the centre of all this, the lion. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) may be able to tell us whether the new style of the Scottish Nature Conservancy Council would deal with the various doubts that he felt.

Mr. Maclennan: I think that I made my views clear earlier. In previous debates the hon. Gentleman and I were not entirely on the same wavelength; I felt that, on some occasions, the scientific judgment should not be the ruling judgment. In such instances, the economic and community judgment should, in my view, be final, and that can be exercised democratically only by a Minister of the Crown —the Secretary of State. I still firmly believe that such a genuine appeal would have been an appropriate way in which to deal with the problem. The article refers to it very fairly, although it may give slightly the wrong impression by implying that this is all about landowning.

Mr. Dalyell: Look at what the Government have done: they have put the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and me on to the same wavelength. That really is an historic achievement.
I am glad to see in the Chamber the Environment Whip, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), because he knows a lot about the issues. I say to the hon. Gentleman that if there is progress, and if there is a chance that the Government will reconsider in the cold light of day, his colleagues could be spared a great deal of inconvenience. As the Environment Whip has only just arrived, he must be told that this could be a very long speech.

Mr. Dunnachie: Tell him the whole story.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend says that I should tell the Environment Whip the whole story, and who am I to do otherwise?

Mr. Dunnachie: The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security has also just arrived.

1 am

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) would be better in her bed. [Laughter.] I will tell her how she can go to her bed. She can use the same tactics that she employed with such strength, Friday after Friday, on a subject that I will not mention, and tell her Whips that they can stop all this—there is a great deal more to come—if they will only take time to reflect, and to consider the monstrosity that has been perpetrated in the other place. They would be sensible to listen. Even if they get rid of me at 4 o'clock in the morning, there are others to come. The sun will be shining. All this could be avoided.
The Daily Telegraph article continues:
It is not only major absentee landowners such as Lord Pearson who have complaints, however. Dr. Neil Duncan, a zoologist by training, has had problems with the NCC on his 4,500 acres on the north of West Loch Tarbert, Argyll. The NCC designated an SSSI on his land in 1985 without telling about it, he claims.
The SSSI in question is a 600-acre birch and oak wood, a number of non-indigenous beech, sycamore and Scots pine planted last century. The NCC opposed his plans to replant parts of the wood with native species and to start a deer farm on his land. He prevailed, by the unusual procedure of writing to all the members of the NCC Scottish committee and asking them personally to come to see his land.
`They could have stopped me from making a living. It was all rather silly. I'm an ecologist by training, so I know it was silly,' he says. 'If someone else has an opinion, the NCC do not know how to handle it.'


Conservationists such as Simon Pepper of the World Wide Fund for Nature in Scotland are the first to say that there must be a mechanism to settle cases of potential hardship.
I spoke to Mr. Pepper in Aberfeldy by telephone tonight, to make sure that he stuck by the opinions that The Daily Telegraph reported him as having, when it reported him as saying:
the Lords and the Government have gone for the wrong target, the SSSI designation itself, when what is needed is a fairer way for a farmer to negotiate over what he is allowed to do on his land once it has been established as of importance in nature conservation.
What is the Minister's view of Pepper's statement? Does he have a view? Does he think that Pepper has offered him a way out? Mr. Pepper has many members in his organisation.
The article continued:
This, he and others had assumed, would be brought about through the new landowner-friendly regional bodies of SNH.
'The Government simply hasn't thought through the implications of what it has created', Pepper said. 'This review system provides an opportunity for mass dissent. It could form the basis for a campaign against the SSSI system which could lead to mass de-notification of sites like the Flow Country. You can see the whole system haemorrhaging and falling apart.—
The Minister is making notes. Would he do us the courtesy of telling us what they are? I am trying to extract his thoughts.
I note that we have just been joined by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He is a man of great force in the Government. He should tell the Whips that all this could be easily brought to an end if the Government would just take a breathing space and go back to the drawing board. In this case, the drawing board is the Bill that went through Committee with a great deal of good will; the other place should not have been allowed to alter it at the last moment. If the hon. Gentleman told the Government that, he could quickly get to his bed.
The Daily Telegraph continued:
Frantic letters have been flowing to and fro between Magnus Magnusson and Scottish Office ministers trying to set out exactly how the new review panel will operate and what powers they will have.
I could be wrong, but I do not think that the Minister made any reference to those letters in his speech. Why was the House told not about that correspondence? It is incredible that the Government's own man should create such dissatisfaction. If the Government appoint a chairman of an organisation, and then have correspondence about his dissent, do they not feel that they are under an obligation to tell the House about the gist of that correspondence?

Mr. Maclennan: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman a question about an important point, to which I referred in my speech. I genuinely want to hear his opinion—he has told us of the opinions of others—on whether the independence of the scientific advisers in Scotland is an issue for our debate tonight.

Mr. Dalyell: It is an issue. In Committee and previously, I had a great deal of contact with Dr. Derek Ratcliffe, who for many years was senior scientific adviser to the Nature Conservancy Council. The Government can contact him at 43 Thornton close, Cambridge, to find out his opinion. His successor, a man called Peter Bridgewater,

was also a friend of mine. He returned from Australia to take the job, but then found that it was not what he thought it would be, and he returned to Australia, where he has an important job with the federal Government. It was their opinion that the science base was threatened. That was the basis of my objection to what happened in the first place, but I had had to become reconciled to it until clause 11 came along.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The House is in a difficulty that I hope my hon. Friend will consider. As he knows, I am a great protector of the occupant of the Chair. I understand that there are no other Deputy Speakers in the House. All hon. Members can come and go as they wish, but poor Mr. Deputy Speaker is trapped in the Chair. Does my hon. Friend agree, while he is having his drink of water, that it would not be a bad idea for Mr. Deputy Speaker, from his own point of view, to adjourn the sitting for half an hour?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that Deputy Speakers appear rapidly from nowhere.

Mr. Dalyell: If Deputy Speakers can appear rapidly from nowhere, can Speakers appear rapidly from nowhere —or at least rapidly from upstairs? It would be a very good plan if Mr. Speaker were to acquaint himself with the fiasco with which the House of Commons is now faced. [Interruption.] Government Whips and Leaders of the House can, presumably, be telephoned, or contacted. They are able to be asked for a decision.
Frantic letters have been written. It would be helpful if we could be told of their contents. The article also said:
So far Mr. Heseltine, Environment Secretary, one of the architects of the 1981 Act and therefore of the SSSI system, has not become involved. The Department of the Environment has said the procedure will not be imposed in England.
Others believe that it can be only a matter of time before there is pressure for a review of disputed SSSIs south of the border. Conservationists say MPs who doubt that a measure created in Scotland is likely to affect England and Wales should remember"—
remember what?—
the poll tax.
That is just the first part of my speech. There is a great deal of substance to come. It would be greatly to the advantage of the Whips if they were to call close of play for the day, go back—

Dr. Keith Hampson: The hon. Gentleman knows that I served with him on the Committee that created the SSSIs. I recall that at that time he was not at all happy with the format for England, in that it left too much to the political process and the Secretary of State. He referred at great length to the need for scientific suport and back-up, and he cited in particular Edinburgh university. The hon. Gentleman seems to have changed his position somewhat.

Mr. Dalyell: No. I have been more consistent than anybody else. It was precisely the case for scientific back-up and the break-up of scientific unity that led me to say what I did. Whatever one thought of it, Peterborough was a coherent whole and owed very much to the expert opinion of Dr. Derek Ratcliffe, Mr. Peter Bridgewater and others—those in the midst of it. The break-up had very few friends among those who worked for the Nature Conservancy Council, not least among those who worked


for the NCC in Scotland in the scientific departments. It did not want that either, for the simple reason that, apart from the cost, which is considerable, many of the tasks that it fulfilled will not be fulfilled when it is divided into three.

Mr. Strang: The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) may not have been present for our earlier deliberations. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) mentioned scientific advice and seemed to imply that there can be a range of scientific opinion on an issue—people may make a scientific judgment, but that is not an experiment where something can be tested and proved—but that does not devalue the importance of scientific advice and does not mean that one can ignore economic and commercial considerations.
That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—he will correct me if I do him an injustice—keeps referring to negotiation. In a sense, there is informal negotation, whether it be with a land user, a tenant or a crofter. That does not detract from the importance of objective independent scientific advice on environmental issues.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Answer.

Mr. Dalyell: There is no answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East has made a valid point of substance. The comment must be made by the Minister.

Mr. Bill Walker: I endorse what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said. A second body of scientific opinion could evaluate the different approaches. A second opinion may not be necessary if we achieve the flexibility that we hope for, but the existence of that second opinion will make it easier to reach agreement.

Mr. Dalyell: There is some confusion about these opinions. The first opinion is on the scientific fact and the second is on the interpretation of policy on a site, which are wholly different. There can be little argument about the first, but there can be much argument about the second. However, bluntly, it is a matter not of scientific opinion but of general landowners' interests. I do not dismiss the landowners' interest as of no consequence, but, whatever else it is, it is not just the guts of scientific opinion as such.
I hope that the hon. Member for Tayside, North is not getting into too much trouble for having intervened because he made an important point. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) is telling his colleague to be quiet, he is misguided. He should be telephoning the Chief Whip and telling him that he could easily bring this to an end. He should discuss the matter with the Department of the Environment, where he has contacts, and ask why it is not following the example of the Scottish Office.

Mr. Alex Eadie: My hon. Friend is being a bit too generous in appealing for proceedings to be brought abruptly to an end. Having listened to his speech, I observe that the longer the debate goes on, the more political damage it is doing the Conservative party in Scotland. I therefore appeal to him to continue, because, when reports of this appear tomorrow, it will cause tremendous political embarrassment in Scotland. It is to our advantage that he keeps going.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not concerned about the politics of this matter. The central issue is not politics but what is likely to happen in Scotland. I eschew any idea of party politics. The most powerful case against the Government has come from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the Conservative Member who knows most about this subject, having been a member of the Nature Conservancy Council. The Government should have said, "We should listen to the words of the former Minister who piloted the Bill through the House. We should reflect and go back to the House."

Dr. Norman A Godman: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has acknowledged that this is not a dispute between environmentalists and landowners. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) suggested, it may be a dispute between environmentalists' interests and economic interests.
As the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will remember, about four years ago, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) was deeply aggrieved because the environmentalists in his constituency were arguing against setting up a fish farm on a small loch there. The environmentalists argued that a valuable area of oligotrophic mosses 150 ft below the loch's surface should be protected and that the mosses would be destroyed if a fish farm were established. I had great sympathy for the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, because 50 or 60 new jobs were involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is right to stress that it is not just a conflict between environmentalists and landowners.

Mr. Dalyell: Let us encapsulate that by saying that the Minister must address the oligotrophic moss question. We want an answer.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the World Wide Fund for Nature and others are deeply concerned that the proposed measure will radically change the way in which sites are designated in Scotland and present a serious threat to the conservation of some of Britain's best wildlife sites. Many recent conservation successes, including the opposition to peat extraction at Duich Moss and the refusal to allow skiing facilities at Lurchers Gully, would not have been possible if the sites in question were stripped of their SSSI status.

Mr. Macdonald: Is my my hon. Friend aware that the Government, in their embarrassment, are thinking of moving a closure motion? If that happens, our many questions to the Minister will remain unanswered. As the Government have turned somersault after somersault on the Bill and have gone back innumerable times on their commitments, does my hon. Friend agree that, if they terminate the debate, it will be a disgrace which will embarrass them in in tomorrow's newspapers?

Mr. Dalyell: If the Government decide to move a closure we shall, of course, oppose it. Instead of suffering the embarrassment of a closure, it would be much simpler if the Government listened to all parties—and it is all parties that are involved because, apart from the hon. Member for Tayside, North, the Government have been friendless tonight. Only the hon. Member for Tayside, North was their friend, and he was a qualified friend. When that happens on what is not strictly a party issue


—it should be a Commons versus Lords issue in the light of what has happened—it is no disgrace for the Government to say that perchance they should think again.

Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has raised an enormously important issue. The Government should respond properly to the arguments that have been deployed so cogently by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and others, but the problem goes deeper. there was a Scottish consensus behind this legislation. It was supported by the House as a whole, despite the fact that the initial decision was controversial, for reasons that we have already mentioned. If the Government move the closure to halt debate on major Scottish legislation, that will devalue the legislation in the eyes of many Scottish people, and it will be enacted against the votes of the Labour Members who constitute the majority of Scottish Members of Parliament.

Mr. Dalyell: If the consensus had not been shattered in this way, I should not have had the brass neck to speak for more than 10 minutes. The Whips and my colleagues would have told me to shut up. They are not saying that, because we believe that we have been deceived and double-crossed.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. There is no question but that the issue of appeals was raised in Committee not only by me but by others. It is wrong to tell the House that we were happy with the decisions in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman cares to re-read the record of the Committee's proceedings, he will see that I withdrew my amendment on the basis that we could return to it.

Mr. Dalyell: There is a difference between appeals and the whole system that is now being built in, which is organised second-guessing. The organisation set up by the Government has been undermined. Who says that, but the chairman, Magnus Magnusson, and Frank Holliday, who was not consulted. That is part of the trouble. When the people who are supposed to be in charge are among the most dissatisfied, there is time to think again.
There is a danger that the amendment will cause many battles over SSSI designation and land use to be reopened. Will the Minister explain how planners and developers will know whether a site is sensitive to development or change in use if the SSSI label is removed? That is an important question—how will planners and developers now whether a site is sensitive to development or change in use if the SSSI label is removed?
Designation—[Interruption.] Let me explain to the Government Chief Whip what has happened. This would never have occurred if there had not been a complete and dramatic change in that which we thought had been agreed. The truth is that, because of Lord Pearson and his 250 acres, that relatively new peer persuaded the Lords not only to change the Bill but to do so fundamentally so that the very nature of the creature is altered. I repeat that I should not have been allowed, or had the brass neck, to raise—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put—
Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Strang: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take it after the Division, when I can hear it properly.

The House having divided: Ayes 118, Noes 41.

Division No. 187]
[1.30 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Kirkhope, Timothy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Amess, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Arbuthnot, James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Maclean, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mills, Iain


Benyon, W.
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Mitchell, Sir David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Monro, Sir Hector


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Morrison, Sir Charles


Boswell, Tim
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Bowis, John
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Brazier, Julian
Nelson, Anthony


Bright, Graham
Neubert, Sir Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Nicholls, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Carrington, Matthew
Norris, Steve


Chapman, Sydney
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Page, Richard


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Paice, James


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Raffan, Keith


Cran, James
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Day, Stephen
Shaw, David (Dover)


Dorrell, Stephen
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Dover, Den
Shersby, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Durant, Sir Anthony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Fallon, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Stern, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Stevens, Lewis


Franks, Cecil
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Freeman, Roger
Sumberg, David


Gale, Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gill, Christopher
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Goodlad, Alastair
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Thurnham, Peter


Gregory, Conal
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hague, William
Trotter, Neville


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hampson, Dr Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Hannam, John
Waller, Gary


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Harris, David
Watts, John


Hayward, Robert
Wells, Bowen


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Whitney, Ray


Hind, Kenneth
Widdecombe, Ann


Irvine, Michael
Wilshire, David


Jack, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Jackson, Robert
Yeo, Tim


Janman, Tim



Jessel, Toby
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Mr. Neil Hamilton.






NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
McKelvey, William


Canavan, Dennis
Maclennan, Robert


Cryer, Bob
McMaster, Gordon


Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Darling, Alistair
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dewar, Donald
Nellist, Dave


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter L.


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Eadie, Alexander
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Strang, Gavin


Foster, Derek
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Foulkes, George
Wallace, James


Fyfe, Maria
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Galbraith, Sam
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Galloway, George
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Worthington, Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and


Macdonald, Calum A.
Mr. Frank Doran.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Strang: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I said earlier, I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order immediately after the Division, and he will not then need to be covered.

Mr. Strang: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that the black hat is to enable one to raise a point of order in the middle of a Division?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I will take his point of order as soon as the Division is complete. [Interruption.]

The House having divided: Ayes 115, Noes 36.

Division No. 188]
[1.42 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arbuthnot, James
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Franks, Cecil


Benyon, W.
Freeman, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gale, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Goodlad, Alastair


Bottomley, Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brazier, Julian
Gregory, Conal


Bright, Graham
Hague, William


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Hannam, John


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Harris, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayward, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cran, James
Hind, Kenneth


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irvine, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Janman, Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby





Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shersby, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kirkhope, Timothy
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stern, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stevens, Lewis


Maclean, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mitchell, Sir David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thurnham, Peter


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Trotter, Neville


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waller, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Watts, John


Norris, Steve
Wells, Bowen


Oppenheim, Phillip
Whitney, Ray


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Paice, James
Wilshire, David


Raffan, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard



Sackville, Hon Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Canavan, Dennis
McKelvey, William


Cryer, Bob
McMaster, Gordon


Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Darling, Alistair
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Nellist, Dave


Dewar, Donald
Pike, Peter L.


Dixon, Don
Quin, Ms Joyce


Doran, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Spearing, Nigel


Eadie, Alexander
Strang, Gavin


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Foster, Derek
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Foulkes, George
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Fyfe, Maria
Worthington, Tony


Galbraith, Sam



Galloway, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mr. Allan McKay and


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Strang: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Take your hat off."] What is the point of the hat, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is asking me why I did not take his point of order during the Division. That must be a matter of judgment for the Chair. I put it to the House as a matter of common sense that it is extremely difficult when hon. Members are moving about the Chamber, including moving between the Chair and the hon. Member who is trying to put the point of order, for the point of order to be made in a satisfactory manner or for the Chair to hear it properly. I decided that, in the circumstances, it would be better for the hon. Member, for the occupant of the Chair and for the House as a whole if the point of order was made when the House was quiet. I now invite the hon. Gentleman to put his point of order to me.

Mr. Strang: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the Division on the closure, this is the


second Division. I do not think that many hon. Members in the Chamber are unaware that during the previous Division a Member was seated and covered and his point of order was not taken. That should be put on record. If we are to use the hat for the purpose of raising points of order during Divisions, surely they should be taken by the Chair, especially when they relate to closures. Surely Divisions on closure motions are the most important Divisions. Only recently a closure motion was carried—I shall come to my point of order in a minute, but perhaps—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If a closure motion is carried on a Division, that instructs the occupant of the Chair to put the Question immediately. The two Questions are really part of the same Question. That is the answer to the hon. Member's point of order. That having been said, I shall now gladly listen to his point of order.

Mr. Strang: Clearly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should have preferred to raise my point of order before the closure was voted on and carried. Nevertheless, I maintain that there is an important issue at stake. Fundamentally, we are talking about a disagreement between this House and the other place. Clause 11 was removed from the Bill last time it was considered by the House of Commons. A variant of that clause was then reinserted in the Bill by the other place —and we are all very conscious of the way in which the debate in the other place was conducted.
We have found tonight that, although the House of Lords has clearly sought to contradict a decision of the House of Commons, we have not been allowed to deploy our case. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will agree with me that there are many powerful and important points which have not been raised—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot continue the debate, but I shall certainly hear his point of order for the Chair.

2 am

Mr. Strang: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification. I think that hon. Members are aware of what is at stake here. Only two weeks ago, almost £500,000 was granted to a landlord on the basis of the issues arising out of the Bill. Without wishing to make the speech that the size of the Government's majority prevented me from making, as an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency—from making—and I may say that a few other hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies were also denied the opportunity to put their case-1 ask you, Sir, whether the size of the Government's majority has now prevented all further discussion of a decision by the House of Lords to contradict—indeed, overrule—the House of Commons decision.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can only deal with the point of order addressed to the Chair. It is obviously a matter of judgment for the occupant of the Chair whether to accept a closure motion. It is a difficult judgment. A balance has to be struck after the occupant of the Chair has listened to the debate. Nevertheless, it is, of course, for the House to decide whether to accept the closure. I exercised my judgment in this case to the best of my ability.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that precedent on these matters is passed from one occupant of the Chair to the next? Is it not also a fact that, in this case, the factors relating to the debate—an apparent reversal by the House of Lords of an earlier view taken by the House of Commons—places the occupant of the Chair in a different sort of position, if a closure is claimed, than that which one might expect in a normal debate? If that is so, Sir, cannot this matter either be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure or be considered in some other way? Are you not faced with a different set of factors than would normally be the case?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that different sets of factors are involved. The fact is that the occupant of the Chair has to exercise a judgment in the individual circumstances—and circumstances almost always vary to some degree. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure, he is, of course, free to do so.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where's Cryer?"] He's gone with the hat. In the 21 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, the occupant of the Chair has always heard points of order raised during a Division. I am told that in this quaint little place one puts on the hat so that one can be distinguished from all those milling around during a Division. At least, that is one argument—there have been others as well.
Only a few years ago the House debated a set of rules. We decided, among other things, to keep the hat. Some hon. Members wanted to get rid of this strange custom but, following a Division, it was agreed that it should be kept—for the very good reason that it was important for it to be worn during Divisions.
I should like to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the precedent that you have set tonight will be perpetuated by future Speakers and Deputy Speakers. The Clerks who sit at the Table are supposed to advise on Standing Orders and so forth; I am surprised that they did not tell you, that a point of order during a Division is automatically granted. I have never known this to happen before, so I should like to know the circumstances in which you have reached your decision. We do not want it to be repeated; if we have to troop through the Lobbies to keep the hat, the Chair should observe the custom when hon. Members put the hat on their heads.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No precedent has been created. I dealt with the point in what I hope was a reasonable manner; there is nothing more that I can add.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have never been one of those hon. Members who are enthusiastic about the hat; it may make my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) look a bit like Frankie Vaughan, but it does not do the same for me.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said, however, the hat is there for the distinct purpose of differentiating between those who wish to raise a point of order during a Division and those who wish to vote. Can you give us a fuller ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker —later, if not now—on whether the Chair's entitlement to decide whether to take a point of order during a Division


hearing that point of order has created a precedent? I understood that the Chair could rule that a point of order was valid, or bogus, once it had been made, but surely if the point of order has not even been accepted, there is no way in which the Chair can judge whether it is valid.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have said, no precedent has been created. If hon. Members read what I said when Hansard appears, they will realise that mine was a common-sense judgment.
Question put, That amendment (a) to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There appears to be a delay in the Division Lobbies. Will the Serjeant at Arms please investigate?

The House having divided: Ayes 36, Noes 109.

Division No. 189]
[2.7 am


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Canavan, Dennis
McKelvey, William


Cryer, Bob
McMaster, Gordon


Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Darling, Alistair
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Nellist, Dave


Dewar, Donald
Pike, Peter L.


Dixon, Don
Ruddock, Joan


Doran, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Spearing, Nigel


Eadie, Alexander
Strang, Gavin


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Foster, Derek
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Foulkes, George
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Fyfe, Maria
Worthington, Tony


Galbraith, Sam



Galloway, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mr. Allen McKay.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Freeman, Roger


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gale, Roger


Amess, David
Gill, Christopher


Arbuthnot, James
Goodlad, Alastair


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gregory, Conal


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hague, William


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boswell, Tim
Hannam, John


Bottomley, Peter
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bowis, John
Harris, David


Brazier, Julian
Hayward, Robert


Bright, Graham
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hind, Kenneth


Burt, Aiistair
Irvine, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Jack, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Jackson, Robert


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jessel, Toby


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cran, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Day, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dorrell, Stephen
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maclean, David


Dover, Den
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dunn, Bob
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Durant, Sir Anthony
Mills, Iain


Fallon, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Sir David


Franks, Cecil
Monro, Sir Hector





Morrison, Sir Charles
Stern, Michael


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Stevens, Lewis


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Sumberg, David


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Norris, Steve
Thurnham, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Patnick, Irvine
Waller, Gary


Raffan, Keith
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wells, Bowen


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Shersby, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. Neil Hamilton.


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Strang: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply wish to register the fact that this will be the final vote on a clause that was rejected by the House but has been inserted by the Lords. There will be no further opportunity to vote on it. Therefore, sadly, Parliament is enacting a Bill that is fundamentally flawed.
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the amendment in lieu.

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 36.

Division No. 190]
[2.28 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Amess, David
Hannam, John


Arbuthnot, James
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Harris, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Hayward, Robert


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hind, Kenneth


Boswell, Tim
Irvine, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Jack, Michael


Bowis, John
Jackson, Robert


Brazier, Julian
Janman, Tim


Bright, Graham
Jessel, Toby


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Burt, Alistair
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carrington, Matthew
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cran, James
Maclean, David


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Day, Stephen
Mills, Iain


Dorrell, Stephen
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, Sir David


Dover, Den
Morrison, Sir Charles


Dunn, Bob
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Durant, Sir Anthony
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Fallon, Michael
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nelson, Anthony


Franks, Cecil
Neubert, Sir Michael


Freeman, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


Gale, Roger
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gill, Christopher
Norris, Steve


Goodlad, Alastair
Oppenheim, Phillip


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Page, Richard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Paice, James


Gregory, Conal
Patnick, Irvine


Hague, William
Raffan, Keith


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn






Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shersby, Michael
Waller, Gary


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wilshire, David


Stevens, Lewis
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Yeo, Tim


Sumberg, David



Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Canavan, Dennis
McKelvey, William


Cryer, Bob
McMaster, Gordon


Dalyell, Tarn
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Darling, Alistair
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Nellist, Dave


Dewar, Donald
Pike, Peter L.


Dixon, Don
Ruddock, Joan


Doran, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Spearing, Nigel


Eadie, Alexander
Strang, Gavin


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Foster, Derek
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Foulkes, George
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Fyfe, Maria
Worthington, Tony


Galbraith, Sam



Galloway, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mr. Allen McKay and


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special entry.]

Natural Heritage Areas

`.—(1) Where it appears to SNH, after consultation with such persons as it thinks fit, that an area is of outstanding value to the natural heritage of Scotland, and that special protection measures are appropriate for it, it may recommend to the Secretary of State that the area be designated as a Natural Heritage Area.
(2) Where the Secretary of State receives a recommendation under subsection (1) above he may designate the area by a direction under this subsection as a Natural Heritage Area.
(3) Where the Secretary of State proposes to make a direction under subsection (2) above he shall publish notice of the proposal in the Edinburgh Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in an area which includes the proposed areas.
(4) Before making a direction under subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State shall consider any representations received by him about the proposal within six weeks of the date which is the later of the dates on which the publication under subsection (3) above of notice relating to the proposal occurs.
(5) Where the Secretary of State makes a direction under subsection (2) above he shall publish notice of the designation in the Edinburgh Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in an area which includes the Area.
(6) Where is appears to SNH, after consultation with such persons as it thinks fit, that it is no longer appropriate that an area which has been designated as a Natural Heritage Area or any part of it should continue to be so designated it may recommend to the Secretary of State that the designation be cancelled or, as the case may be, varied.
(7) Where the Secretary of State receives a recommendation under subsection (6) above he may, by a direction under this subsection, cancel or, as the case may be, vary the designation of the Natural Heritage Area; and subsections (3) to (5) above shall apply to a direction proposed to be made under this subsection as they apply to a direction proposed to be made under subsection (2) above, and for the purposes of such application the reference in subsection (3) to the proposed area shall be construed as a reference to the Area.
(8) Section 262C of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (National Scenic Areas) shall be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (3) for the words "National Scenic Area" there shall be substituted the words "Natural Heritage Area under section [Natural Heritage Areas] of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991; and
(b) in subsection (4) for the words "National Scenic Area" there shall be substituted the words "Natural Heritage Area".

(9) Notwithstanding the repeal by section 26 of and Schedule 11 to this Act of subsections (1) and (2) of the said section 262C or the amendment by this section of subsections (3) and (4) of that section, any area which, at the date of such repeal, was designated as a National Scenic Area shall continue to be so designated and, until such designation is cancelled by a direction under the said section 262C, the provisions of that section shall continue to have effect in relation to the area as if they had not been repealed or, as the case may be, amended.'.

but propose the following amendment thereto:


Lords amendment: in subsection (4), leave out "six weeks" and insert "three months".

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment to the Commons amendment.
The amendment provides for a longer period for the receipt of representations in dealing with the establishment of a natural heritage area. Six weeks is a standard period for representations in planning legislation, but the longer period is perfectly reasonable here, as allowing a substantial time for commenting on a NHA proposal is, of course, entirely in keeping with the Government's view of NHAs as promoting a co-operative approach between all relevant interests. Such an approach is in tune with the fundamental philosophy of Scottish Natural Heritage.
The extension of the period to three months should ensure that anyone who is absent on holiday or the like at the time of the proposal being published is properly able to be involved in the process. I trust that the House will share that view of what is a simple, but important, amendment.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Can the Minister give us any information about the

" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee (in this section referred to as "the Committee") which shall have the function of giving advice to SNH on such matters concerning areas of special scientific interest as are specified in this section.

(2) The chairman and members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Secretary of State from among persons who are not members of SNH or of any committee appointed by it having scientific qualifications and experience in relation to flora or fauna or the geological or physiographical features of land.

(3) The chairman and members of the Committee shall be appointed upon such terms and for such periods as the Secretary of State may determine and they shall be paid by SNH such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.

(4) The Secretary of State may, from time to time, give directions to the Committee as to its procedure.

(5) Where SNH has given notification to the owner or occupier of any land under subsection (1) of section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (areas of special scientific interest) that the land is or forms part of an area of special interest and has received from the owner or occupier of the land, within the time specified in subsection (2) of that section, representations or objections relating to any reason specified in the notification in pursuance of subsection (4)(a) of that section and the owner or occupier does not agree to withdraw such representations or objections, it shall refer the matter to the Committee.

(6) Where, as regards any land in respect of which a notification has been given under subsection (1) of the said section 28 before the commencement of this section of this section, SNH receives representations from the owner or occupier of the land that any reason specified in the notification in pursuance of the said subsection (4)(a) has ceased to be valid and, within six months of such representations having been made, they have not been withdrawn—

(a) in the case of a notification given since the commencement of section 2 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1985 or in the case of a notice of proposed notification given before such commencement, where objections or representations were duly made in pursuance of subsection (2) of the said section 28 at the time the notification or, as the case may be, notice was given; and
(b) in any other case, where not less than 10 years have elapsed since the date the notification or, as the case may be, notice was given,

it shall refer the matter to he Committee.

consequences of designation? If he cannot, can he explain why we should accept that three months would be a suitable time?

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Cinemas (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 15th May, he approved. —[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

ANIMALS

That the draft Welfare of Pigs Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

CRIMINAL LAW

That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.
That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1991, which was laid before tis House on 1st May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

CRIMINAL LAW (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the draft Vienna Document (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Confiscation of the Proceeds of Drug Trafficking (Designated Countries and Territories) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.
That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Burma

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Jim Lester: This is the second time that I have sought to draw the Government's attention to the situation in Burma and to press for comprehensive action from the United Kingdom Government. The first time that I did so was on 1 November 1989. I seek to raise this issue again to deal with one of the most objectionable regimes in the world today and to express the sense of widely felt frustration about the fact that it seems impervious to outside influence. It is a coincidence that my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), is seeking an Adjournment debate on human rights under that regime. I have asked him if he will speak for five minutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has also expressed an interest and wants to speak for one minute. The fact that three hon. Members have shown an interest in raising this issue on the Adjournment at this time of night is of some significance.
I have sought this debate now because of two anniversaries. First, 28 May is the anniversary of the elections in Burma that overwhelmingly returned the National League for Democracy, which received 86 per cent. of the vote and 392 seats, as opposed to the National Unity party which received 3 per cent. of the vote and 10 seats. The latter was the close ally of the military junta, known as SLORC. By any standards, that was an overwhelming result—all the more so because of the incredible way in which SLORC attempted to stifle true expression before the election. It was so flagrant that I sought to ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to ignore the result, but the true expression of the people prevailed and the result was overwhelmingly in favour of the National League for Democracy.
However, a year later, not only has no transfer of power taken place, as was requested by all outside observers, but there has been a cold-blooded systematic offensive against the second and third levels of the leadership of the National League for Democracy, with the systematic arrest of elected representatives and savage sentences on trumped-up charges for various members of the party. Kyi Maung, the acting leader of the NLD, has recently had his sentence doubled from 10 to 20 years. Thirty-five Members of Parliament, including four women, have been given 25-year sentences for upholding the democractic will of the people who elected them. Over 80 have been arrested and about 1,000 of those who work for the NLD have been held in prison without trial.
I cannot remember or recollect any similar action by any country. Those in power must have sought to use the elections, presumably to reinforce the 40-year-old military regime's power, against all democratic and international legal precedent, defying the election results and the constitutional process over which no unelected military junta does or should have power. That has been confirmed by the legal director of the international committee on human rights.
The second anniversary was on 19 June, which is closer to the date of this Adjournment debate. It is the birthday of Aung Sun Suu Kyi, the lady was the catalyst for democratic change—a role that she did not seek, and which has resulted in her being kept under lonely house

arrest for over 21 months, without mail, telephone, calls or visits. Even the international civil servant who was appointed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights could not make contact with her. She has had no contact with her family in recent months. Everyone who knows about the lady's position realises that that is a wholly uncivilised way to treat anybody, let alone the leader of a party before an election.
To keep that lady in the same situation after the result that I have described and systematically to undermine her role as a party leader and a patriotic Burmese citizen is wholly unacceptable. Until recently, her role has been unsung, although earlier this year the European Parliament awarded her the Sakharov prize. She has been nominated for the Nobel prize and has already won the Norwegian peace prize. In those ways, those of us who understand the position can try to change world opinion. That lonely lady, an indomitable flame, stands alone against a regime that has increased its forces by over 100,000 since 1988—it now has some 280,000 soldiers and is still recruiting—and is spending its slender national reserves on purchasing ever more arms from China.
I know that the Government share my concerns arid I know about the statements made by the European Community on 27 May. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his interest at the meeting with ASEAN Foreign Ministers, when he spoke strongly of our desire to help to bring about a peaceful political change. What else can and should we do to bring about a change in that obnoxious regime? How can we stop arms sales, especially from China, which can be used only to subjugate the people within Burma? As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there are no external threats to Burma, so its massive army and those weapons can be used only to continue subjugation. Although my right hon. Friend has called on members of the Community, the permanent five and ASEAN to be careful not to supply arms, arms have been purchased from China.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that Burma's overall position is raised at the United Nations General Assembly this year? Active help should be sought from the United States, Australia and Canada, which all have larger Burmese communities living in exile than does this country. Will he consider the suggestion that we could move to a full United Nations aid and trade embargo on goods originating from Burma? I know that all the countries now provide no aid other than humanitarian aid. Could the credentials of the delegation to the United Nations, who have clearly resisted the democratic will of their people, be challenged?
Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider seeking to grant observer status to the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, some of whose members I have met in the House and who have risked terrible consequences by leaving Burma and trying to set up a government in exile. Will he also look at the Swedish draft resolution, which in the United Nations last year was not regarded as sufficiently supportable? I suspect that, because of the continued attitude of SLORC, it might be rather more supportable this year. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the position that I have described in so few words is highlighted?
Will my hon. Friend the Minister follow up the report on human rights that Professor Ogata presented to the Human Rights Commission in Geneva? Those of us who


followed her journey to Burma realise that only one person had a minimalist treatment within that country, not being allowed to meet any leaders of the Opposition; I have already referred to Aung Sun Suu Kyi. None the less, her report was critical and I hope that, instead of only one delegate going to Burma, we could support at least three, representing different sections of the world community. That would insist on carrying out a full inspection to determine the state of human rights in that country.
Furthermore, will my hon. Friend the Minister shake ASEAN's belief that the problem is an internal affair of Burma, which has already isolated itself from the world community for the past 40 years, and that, therefore, it is a continuation of the same policy? When I discussed the question with the Secretary-General of the United Nations in New York, he shared the view that this was the sort of internal affair that should be regarded very much as an external affair because it offends the world's sense of order, and of humane and decent government.
Can we not express grave concern over the treatment of Burmese students in Thailand? The Minister of State assured me in a letter on 20 March that we were monitoring the overall situation. Since then, 41 asylum seekers, all of whom were of concern to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees have been arbitrarily deported to Burma, to heavens knows what. I gather that 21 of them have returned to Thailand as a result of what might have happened to them. They have now been arrested by the Thai authorities. We need to help to establish proper procedures and support for the students who are at risk and to ensure the implementation of United Nations rules.
The reason why I have raised the subject again is not only that many people in the House are concerned, but that there are even more outside who share the sense of frustration which I hope that I have injected into the debate. There are many people in exile in different parts of the world and there must be many more in Burma itself who reach out for those of us who can speak on their behalf and who have no opportunity, other than listening to the BBC world service, of finding out what is happening outside their closed world in which no press, no television and no radio are allowed to go.
The issue is important because of Britain's historical link with this beautiful country and the fact that the only period of genuine democracy that the Burmese people have had was the 14 years after the war of 1945 in which they established a democracy. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he listens to the speeches of my colleagues, will recognise that we share the concern and that we seek to press my hon. Friend and the Government to act on the five issues that I have described so we can bring this dreadful period in Burmese history to an end.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), a near Nottinghamshire neighbour, for allowing me to participate in what he and everyone in the House would agree is a most important debate. Despite the lateness of the hour, I very much hope that the plea from all of us tonight

will not fall on deaf ears. Burma may be a long way away, but it is certainly a country about which we know a great deal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has referred to the historic links with this country. Some 38,000 British and Commonwealth war dead are buried in Burma. There were 74,000 dead and wounded during the second world war. My hon. Friend has referred to the democratic regime which we left in that country when we departed as the colonial power. Yet for the past 30 years, Burma has been subjected to a brutal dictatorship.
Burma used to be the largest exporter of rice in the world. Today, it is the sixth poorest country in the world. As my hon. Friend has said, it is a country with no external enemies —yet 40 per cent. of its national spending is on arms, which are used against its own people. In short, it is a nasty, corrupt, brutal and repressive dictatorship. The recent letter in The Independent from the cultural attache at the Burmese embassy, explaining that one of the reasons for the delay in yielding democracy was the failure of candidates to file their election expenses, shows the level of argument to which we are subjected from the illegal regime in Burma.
In 1988, democracy nearly made a breakthrough. Under the eyes of the world, there was appalling repression. Some 10,000 people died, elections followed some time later and, as my hon. Friend said, 86 per cent. of the votes were won by the opposition. Since then, 25 Members of Parliament have been sentenced to long periods in prison, and in some cases sentences have been arbitrarily doubled. Opposition leaders are locked up without trial, between 3,000 and 10,000 people have had to flee the country, and the illegal regime has attacked the country's established religion—Buddhism. There may be some hope that the Buddhists in Burma can play a role similar to that played by the Catholic Church in Poland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said that Aung Sun Suu Kyi was a catalyst for change. That immensely brave lady is in an appalling plight in Burma and she remains under house arrest. I was delighted to see her nominated for the Nobel peace prize. She is still unable to see her two teenage sons, who have been stripped of their Burmese passports. She remains the legitimate and elected leader of Burma, and the way in which she has been treated and imprisoned is a disgrace.
There are several ways in which we can intensify the pressure on the regime in Burma. We must make sure that the eyes of the world are focused on what is happening in that country. I hope that we can continue the excellent work that the Minister has been doing in ensuring that representations are made through the European Community and the United Nations. I hope that the Minister will heed the words of my hon. Friend the Minister for Broxtowe about the importance of an arms embargo, and I welcome the work carried out on that by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
I hope that we can persuade America to put more pressure on China, which is the country with the most effective leverage on Burma. The BBC world service has many listeners in Burma, and I believe that the BBC receives more letters from Burma than from any other country. Perhaps the Minister will consider whether the BBC world service is broadcasting to Burma for a sufficient number of hours. I hope that he will find out whether more can be done to offer scholarships to Burmese students, especially those who have been forced to flee to Thailand, and that he will heed what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has said about


human rights. The Government can help by collecting data on human rights atrocities, and by doing so more actively than they have done in the past. We must let the regime know not only that evidence of its misdeeds is being collected, but that it is a pariah in the international community.
I hope that the Government will do everything possible to secure the early release of Aung Sun Suu Kyi. As I have said, she is the rightful and legitimate leader of Burma and before long events will show that she is the right person to lead that country. I hope that the Government will do everything to ensure that that happy event occurs as quickly as possible.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) has rendered the House and Burma a service by initiating this debate, and he has been ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell).
There are 40 million people in Burma—equivalent to the population of Spain or to the combined population of Canada and Australia. We are debating very many decent, cheerful people who for a long time have suffered under a regime that has made them poorer year by year. The glimpse of democracy has returned those people to conditions worse than those that prevailed four or five years ago when I was there.
I hope that the debate will lead to greater international co-operation and to a promise to the present rulers of Burma that their way is a cul-de-sac which brings no benefit to them and certainly leads to harm for their people. The sooner they realise the advantages of a flexible, democratic and economic system, the sooner Burma can return to the community of nations. I hope that Burma will put right the mistake of not joining the Commonwealth, which it made when it became independent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The House is grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) for drawing attention to what is undoubtedly one of the worst cases of human rights abuses in the contemporary world.
It is hard to overstate the sense of indignation and outrage which the situation in Burma evokes in Britain, in the European Community and, indeed, anywhere in the world where democracy and the rule of law are valued.
The facts can be simply stated. Three years ago, the Burmese people, in a series of demonstrations and popular protests, overwhelmingly showed their dissatisfaction with nearly three decades of misrule, entitled 'the Burmese way to socialism', under the dictator Ne Win. One point above all stood out from those turbulent events, which involved ordinary Burmese in all walks of life: the desire for change and for a new democratic start for their much abused country.
Alas, this was not to be. Employing brutal methods which were widely condemned outside the country, the Burmese army suppressed the demonstrations with military force and efficiency. As a result, we suspended all official bilateral European Community aid to Burma, a suspension which remains in force. The only glimmer of hope to come from the carnage was that the State Law and

Order Restoration Council, or SLORC, the military junta which assumed control, promised to guide Burma towards free and fair elections and thus to democratic rule. British policy was at that stage to press for those elections and to judge SLORC on the extent to which that promise was kept.
Although in the run-up to the elections the opposition were harassed and their charismatic leader, of whom we have heard mention tonight, was placed under house arrest, as we have also heard, the result was an overwhelming vote for the National League for Democracy—a truly massive demonstration of the popular yearning for a new democratic course. The poll in May 1990 was generally regarded as free and fair, and was welcomed as such worldwide.
At the time of the elections, the Foreign Office drew up a four-stage plan for improving our relations with Burma, in the expectation that SLORC would fulfil its promise to return Burma to democracy, and that that would lead to a full normalisation of relations, including the restoration of aid. The first stage was to start when SLORC initiated a dialogue with the NLD, the minimum step that we expected it to take. Whatever our expectations, the reality turned out to be very different. Far from starting a dialogue with the winning party, in the year following the elections SLORC systematically set about destroying the opposition and cowing all other elements in Burmese society which represented any perceived threat to its continuation in office. This was done in the face of repeated calls by the international community for the outcome of the election to be honoured and respected.
For example, two months after the elections, the Foreign Secretary wrote personally to the chairman of SLORC, in friendly terms, regretting that relations between our two countries should be at such a low level and expressing the hope that the process of transferring power to those who had been democratically elected would begin soon. Those and other such appeals have been flatly and cynically ignored, with SLORC strengthening its grip on state power and showing not the slightest desire to stand by the election outcome. Recently, the Burmese embassy circulated a 65-page press release on the position in Burma which contrived to avoid any mention of the election result.
We believe that the completely unambiguous way in which the Burmese people opted for democratic change must be acknowledged and acted upon. After holding a free and fair poll and then ignoring the outcome, SLORC has cocked a snook at the democratic principle in the most direct possible way. That cannot and must not pass unchallenged. It is incumbent on all countries who value democracy to make it clear that such behaviour is not acceptable and that democracy is not to be trifled with in that cynical fashion.
As I have said, deep concern about the present situation in Burma is widespread. We and the European Community have repeatedly called for the restoration of democracy and human rights. We were closely associated with a demarche to SLORC by no fewer than 18 like-minded nations in September 1990. At the recent meeting of the European Community—ASEAN nations in Luxembourg, we called on Burma's regional neighbours to use their influence with SLORC to persuade it that its policies were leading in the wrong direction. We understood the delicacy of that request for the ASEAN countries, especially as they had never before in their


official pronouncements referred to Burma in any way, and it might have seemed strange for them to do so for the first time in Europe. Nevertheless, they agreed to such a reference in their joint statement. The EC and ASEAN Ministers expressed the hope that the situation in Burma would evolve in such a way as to enable the country to take its place among the dynamic Asian economies.
That may sound a less than revolutionary aspiration. In the Burmese context, however, it effectively calls for the reversal of a policy of self-imposed isolation which Burma has pursued for the past 40 years and is clearly a major change. We hope that the ASEAN countries will now make this new position known to SLORC and that there will be an appropriate response.
Other sentiments in the EC-ASEAN joint statement are also relevant to Burma. For example, Ministers referred with approval to the growth of democratic practice, respect for human rights and increased political and economic participation for all people. These are the policies that Burma needs, and we hope that SLORC will heed the advice.
What else can we do? My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe posed several questions and I shall comment on some of them. Clearly we must continue our efforts to bring home to SLORC that its policies are leading Burma up a blind and dreadful alley. We support all diplomatic action that helps to bring home that message. For example, we would like to see action in the United Nations. The United Nations General Assembly's third

committee resolution on Burma, which was put forward in 1990, will be discussed at this year's Assembly. We shall again support it, and hope that it attracts the widest possible international support, including, this year, from ASEAN. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights is also considering Burma for the second year running in its confidential 1503 procedure. We welcome this continuing action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe mentioned arms. We are particularly concerned that SLORC should devote such a large proportion of Burma's meagre resources to the purchase of arms, despite the fact that Burma faces no external threat. We have taken the lead in seeking an EC embargo on all such sales, and we hope that it will be formalised shortly. As my hon. Friend said, the signs are that China is an arms supplier in Burma. We have publicly urged all countries to show restraint, and that was a major theme of the address to the EC and ASEAN ministerial meeting on 13 May by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
My hon. Friends have mentioned their great concern, which is shared by us all, for Aung Sun Suu Kyi, who has been held without charge under house arrest since July 1989. The award of the European Parliament's Sakharov prize and her nomination for a Nobel peace prize reflect the international esteem in which she is held. Here is someone whose only crime was to seek democracy by peaceful means for the country which her father did so much to create after the second world war.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Three o'clock.